There was a period in the 1990s through the 2000s when automakers and the buying public were obsessed with everything retro. The past was cool again, and car buyers had a buffet of vehicles to choose from the Plymouth Prowler to the S197 Ford Mustang. Many of these cars enjoyed strong sales, but one left out in the cold was the 2002 through 2005 Ford Thunderbird, the final Thunderbird. Comparatively few people bought the latest T-bird before Ford took it out back and shot it, never bringing the nameplate back again. It’s a shame, because not only did the last Thunderbird do retro right, but it would be a great design to have today when old is cool again.
Welcome to a new series we’re calling Car Redemption! We love cars here and we think some cars just aren’t getting their fair shake. So, each week, one Autopian writer will try to make the case to redeem a vehicle. You already saw Jason loving all over the Volkswagen New Beetle.
The final Ford Thunderbird has a reputation among enthusiasts as a “Boomer” car and a machine that’s not sporty enough, too cheap feeling, and just a two-door rebody of the Lincoln LS that’s too big. It’s not hard to find someone complaining about the last T-birds and their interiors, price tag, and just two seats. The wild part is that a lot of this comes after the fact. When the 2002 Ford Thunderbird was new, the press showered it with praise. Motor Trend even crowned the Thunderbird as its 2002 Car of the Year.
While the 11th-generation Ford Thunderbird may not have been the hot rod some are expecting, I think it’s worth another look today.
The final Ford Thunderbird was arguably one of the last of a dying class of vehicle. Decades ago, Americans used to be allured by the idea of a personal luxury coupe. These were vehicles that were small on seat count and huge on power and luxury. Forget the kids, this is a car for you and your spouse to hit the town in.
This story is important because the Ford Thunderbird was one of the vehicles to help popularize the segment in the first place. Even though Ford no longer sells the Thunderbird, it’s proud enough of the vehicle’s heritage to host a retrospective on its corporate site.
The Original Thunderbird Was Ford’s Rival For The Corvette
In Ford’s recounting of the tale, the company says it began a project to create what it called a “true Ford sports car” due to launch for the 1955 model year. This project launched in 1953 in response to the attention garnered by Chevrolet’s Corvette. America was falling in love with sports cars, and the Blue Oval wasn’t about to let General Motors have all of the fun.
Henry Ford II pinched former General Motors executive Louis D. Crusoe for the new vehicle. Crusoe then joined forces with George Walker and Ford chief designer Frank Hershey to bring the vehicle into reality. As Ford writes, they had to follow strict demands:
The initial guidelines called for a two-passenger, canvas-topped open car that would make maximum use of standard production components. The design objectives included a weight of 2,525 pounds, an Interceptor V-8 engine, a balanced weight distribution, acceleration better than the competition, and a top speed of more than 100 miles per hour. The new Ford sports car also was to retain Ford product characteristics and identification to the extent necessary for a ready association with the standard production car.
While the production of the car was nearing completion, Ford had a problem—they lacked a name for their new sports car. 5,000 names for the vehicle were suggested including Beaver, Detroiter, Runabout, and Savile. These names were unimpressive to the team working on the sports car. Crusoe offered a $250 suit to anyone who could do better. Ford stylist Alden Giberson stepped up to the challenge and recommended the name that the team would go with—Thunderbird.
Even though the Thunderbird was developed in response to the Corvette, it would tack toward luxury rather than pure sports car thrill. This was made clear when the Thunderbird made its first public appearance on February 20, 1954 during Detroit’s first post-World War II auto show. Ford decided that instead of creating a direct competitor to the Corvette, its car would remain a powerful and sporty vehicle, but catering to the luxury buyer. It’s been debated about whether Ford invented the personal luxury car, but at any rate it was a niche back then.
Ford understates just how popular the Thunderbird was. The company received 3,500 orders within the first ten days and the vehicle beat sales expectations in its first year by moving 16,155 units. Right out of the gate, the Thunderbird destroyed the Chevy Corvette on the sales floor four to one despite its more luxurious configuration and between $2,695 and $4,000 price.
The Thunderbird would meander through various configurations over the next 42 years. The second-generation Thunderbird got rear seats while the third-generation model looked like a bullet piercing through the air. In the late 1960s, the Thunderbird even became less personal and larger and more luxurious. Later generations of the Thunderbird would see the car’s size decrease, the design square up, and the technology get better.
The original end of the road for the Thunderbird was the vehicle’s tenth generation, which launched in 1988 for the 1989 model year. The new Thunderbird, which departed from the Fox platform to the MN12 platform, was a technological tour de force. Vehicles riding on this platform, including the Thunderbird, Lincoln Mark VIII, and the Mercury Cougar all benefited from four-wheel independent suspension. If you wanted a rear-wheel-drive American car with an independent suspension, your choice was a Corvette or a Ford product. Thunderbirds were available with four wheel disc brakes, an anti-lock braking system, a limited-slip differential, and more.
Unfortunately, the tenth-generation car came in hundreds of pounds overweight and $900 per car more than desired. Even worse was the fact that the new car didn’t deliver the expected power, either. Sales weren’t that bad, with Ford moving 960,624 units between 1989 and 1997. However, Ford considered the Thunderbird a failure. The personal luxury car bowed out briefly while Ford worked on a new version.
Ford Goes Retro
According to Automotive News, development on the 11th generation Thunderbird began before its predecessor even ended production.
The new Thunderbird was created under the leadership of automotive legend Jack Telnack. His Ford portfolio, which spanned 39 years, is a stunning one and includes working on the designs for the Fiesta, the 1979 Mustang, the 1983 Thunderbird, the 1986 Taurus, the 1996 Ka, and the 1997 F-150. The 2002 Thunderbird would be one of the last projects he worked on and according to Automotive News, developing the Thunderbird took so long that it was his longest project. Telnack retired in 1997, years before the Thunderbird would even enter production.
According to Automotive News, Ford wanted the new Thunderbird to go back to its two-seat roots. Thus, the very first Thunderbirds became the clear inspiration for the design team. Automotive News described how the neo-Thunderbird came to be:
Telnack set up a competition among studios in Italy, England, Germany, California and Dearborn. He brought a 1955 and a 1957 Thunderbird to Dearborn, but before sketching began, he told each designer to wash the cars.
“I told them, I want you to rub your hands over the surfaces, understand the shapes, the forms that build the character lines, really get into it,” he said. “You learn more by washing a car than standing there and looking at it. It gets in your blood after a while.”
In the end, the Dearborn studio won, and the 1955 Thunderbird became the inspiration for the 2002 car. “If you look at the ’55 in side elevations, you will notice that the car starts high in the front, reaching the high point over the front wheel and then tapers to the rear. Guess what? So does the new one.”
Telnack passed the torch to J Mays before leaving, and his team spent more time carving out the fine details. Mays’ team honed in on smaller parts such as interior fabrics, trim pieces, scoops, wheel openings, and the taillights. While the 1955 Thunderbird was the vehicle’s overall inspiration, the taillights are supposed to be a nod to the 1961 model.
Underneath the metal was the Ford DEW98 platform, which meant its siblings were the Lincoln LS and the Jaguar S-type. MotorWeek notes that while the Thunderbird looked fresh, it robbed the corporate parts bin for two-thirds of its parts. Still, that platform gave the T-bird a promising start:
The structural rigidity lost to its topless nostalgia, is somewhat compensated for by the addition of three sturdy X-braces mounted to the underside of the car. And, for the most part, they work well. Cowl shake is barely perceptible, and it’s not until you encounter really rough going that the T-Bird begins to feel a little squishy. Contributing to this T-Bird’s smooth and quiet ride is the generous 107.2 inch wheelbase, and a nearly perfect 50/50 weight distribution front to back.
Another is the careful tuning of the independent short-long arm suspension found at each corners. Ford engineers targeted what they call a “relaxed ride” by using coil springs with fairly low spring rates. But don’t confuse relaxed with sloppy.
Indeed, our drivers were pleasantly surprised when maneuvering the T-Bird through our low speed slalom course. Body roll for this softly sprung ride was minimal, and the side to side transitions were very controlled, giving the T-Bird a secure and stable feeling. The variable-assist, vehicle speed sensitive rack and pinion steering unit is precise and offers plenty of useful feedback. And the grippy and quiet 17-inch Michelin tires seem a perfect match. Still, in keeping with the original 55- Bird, this head-turning new roadster is more Sunset strip cruiser, rather than road course bruiser.
As Car and Driver notes, the Thunderbird was supposed to have a high-tech interior, but designers felt it didn’t mix. Instead, they went for a design with two-tone and real metal. And as a final nod to the original Thunderbirds, the new one would have a similarly bright color palette.
Power would come from a familiar source, a 3.9-liter Jaguar AJ35 V8, in this case tuned to 252 HP. Sadly, the only transmission option would be a five-speed auto.
Wide Acclaim, Few Sales
The Thunderbird was previewed by a concept (below) in 1999 before going on sale in 2001 for the 2002 model year. The vehicle launched to critical acclaim from journalists. Motor Trend went as far as to nominate the vehicle as its Car of the Year for 2002.
Motor Trend noted that the car was practically a rockstar, getting compliments and looks wherever it went. This was enough to convince the publication that the Thunderbird was destined for fame:
We first got an inkling that Ford might be on to something big with this car six months before Car of the Year testing. We were driving and photographing a new ‘Bird for the road test that would be our July cover story and noted a remarkable phenomenon: The car had public appeal that obliterated all demographic distinctions. Silver-haired gents and their wives came up to us wherever we parked and raved about the car. “Ah, that’s the new Thunderbird. We heard Ford was gonna do that. We had a ’56. Great car. How’s this one drive? Will it really sell for under $40 grand?” And on and on. Clearly, Ford had a design that could tug at mature heartstrings.
But what surprised us was the kids. Tattooed, droopy-drawered teens would kick out of their skateboards to stop and rave. “Wow! Cool car. What is it?” With absolutely no historical context or nostalgic connection, these guys knew in their gut this was something special.
An automobile that gets a rise out of settled grandparents and rebellious grandkids must be on its way to stardom.
Motor Trend continued its nomination by talking up how much it liked the Thunderbird’s excellent exterior and interior design. The publication practically gushed about the brushed aluminum interior trim and the exterior’s neo-retro shape. Motor Trend seemingly forced itself to complain about the Thunderbird’s wheels, which do seem a bit boring compared to the rest of the design. The publication also complained about the seats lacking support.
Multiple reviews noted that the Thunderbird wasn’t a hot rod, but reviewers still enjoyed it. Here’s Motor Trend again:
Stunning performance is not the Thunderbird’s main thing, though seven seconds flat 0-60 requires no apologies. The car stops and turns and sticks with a kind of mature, polished ease that we appreciated. We might prefer a little firmer damping and stiffer spring rates or some adjustability in the suspension, but we wouldn’t want to sacrifice much refinement to sharper handling. We would, however, be happy to see a more sporting bias in the transmission. “Any aggressive driving makes the transmission confused and slow to react,” said Chris Walton. While the ratios in the five-speed automatic accommodate the engine’s torque delivery just fine, the shift quality left us cool. Upshifts were often too syrupy, downshifts could be late and then abrupt, and the detents in the selector were too vague to invite much manual operation. The SelectShift manumatic used in the Lincoln would be a huge improvement.
But those reservations don’t appreciably detract from the Thunderbird’s Fun Factor. “A way-cool cruiser,” enthused Scott Mead. As a transportation device, any two-seat convertible has a natural air of goofing off about it, even when the rest of the car is this sophisticated. So don’t think the smooth ride and draft-free cockpit are cheating somehow. This thing is a kick to run around in.
A number of reviews ended on high marks. Motor Trend called the Thunderbird “the most significant new car for 2002” while Car and Driver said it was “the first Thunderbird in a while to deserve its name.” MotorWeek fell in love, saying “we think this T-Bird is the only way to fly.” Meanwhile, up north, Autos.ca said the Thunderbird “will add a considerable amount of prestige to the driveways of those lucky Canadian buyers.”
I think you get my point. Journalists were in love with the Thunderbird. Yet, sales didn’t seem to reflect the praise. Ford sold a grand total of 68,098 Thunderbirds between 2002 and 2005 when it cut the cord. The best sales year was 2002 when 31,368 units went to new homes. Sales halved the next year and continued to fall until Ford had to stop the bleeding.
It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what went wrong. Maybe it was the price. This luxury Ford stickered at $35,495 before options. That would be like selling a $62,946 coupe today. Ford set its competition with the Audi TT Quattro, the BMW Z3, the Porsche Boxster, and the Mercedes-Benz SLK.
In a retrospective, Doug DeMuro blamed the Thunderbird’s massive size, two seats, relatively tame power, high price, and plastic interior. To be fair to the Thunderbird, plastic was all over the auto industry in the early 2000s, even at the German brands.
Perhaps a better explanation comes from Jerry Flint of Forbes, who believed Ford didn’t try hard enough to sell it:
Selling a $40,000 car through the Ford channel may have also hurt the Thunderbird, which was far more expensive than its high-volume predecessor. Ford dealers have been successful selling $35,000 to $45,000 trucks but have little experience selling automobiles in the near-luxury price range. If there was a marketing effort by Ford Motor, I wasn’t aware of it. Naturally, sales didn’t meet expectations.
Worth Another Look Today
Whatever the reason, the public didn’t respond to the Thunderbird like it did with the Chrysler PT Cruiser and the Volkswagen New Beetle. Still, time heals a lot of wounds and I think the final Thunderbird is worth a look today.
You don’t have to go too far to find an enthusiast who is upset that today’s cars look similar. You also don’t have to go too far to find someone who doesn’t like today’s design trend of giving cars pissed-off faces. I feel like the Thunderbird is nearly the perfect car for today’s jaded enthusiasts.
Here is a V8-powered convertible with a stunning design and rear-wheel-drive. It’s almost the anti-crossover. Sadly, you can’t get a manual transmission, but this is a vehicle I’d be willing to push that aside for. The Thunderbird is the kind of ride you hop into with your love before hitting up the Pacific Coast Highway. And who cares how much it cost new when today, you can get one with well under 100,000 miles for a bit above $10,000 and ones that have seen a lot more of America for under $10,000.
I’ll go as far as to say that we should forget about all of these sharp creases and angry faces and go back to designs like the Thunderbird. Let’s get back to extravagant car design. I’m not saying that Ford should reintroduce the Thunderbird because there’s almost no way a personal luxury coupe would sell in today’s market. But, maybe it’s time to reel things back a little bit.
Either way, it’s a shame that the Thunderbird is seen as such a terrible car. Maybe it’s not the hottest thing from Germany, but the Thunderbird has its place. I think it’s time we gave it another chance, albeit way too many years too late.
(Images: Ford, unless otherwise noted.)
Retro done
rightwrong. There, fixed the headline for you Mercedes.The only retro thing Ford got right with this gen bird was the color palette. They almost got the interior right. Other than that, these were over priced blobs with some Thunderbird jewelry sprinkled on them. The proportions are just wrong. It looks like it’s based on a FWD platform. Not enough space in front of the door and way to much space after the door. I really tried to love these, T-bird fan that I am, but just couldn’t bring myself to do so. There has always been something that looks really off on this birds shape. The long, droopy ass definitely did it no favors, either. These were almost as bad as the 80-82 birds in my book anyway. Jewelry does not make a bird.
“To be fair to the Thunderbird, plastic was all over the auto industry in the early 2000s, even at the German brands”
Plastic has been all over car interiors forever. The difference is where and how they are used. My E39s early 2000s interior is one of the better put together and higher quality interiors I’ve ever been in, so it was not the era.
I’m still reading but boy howdy, it’d take a strong drink and smooth talking to convince me the tenth gen looks anything like a Thunderbird, or even a good looking car. I’d probably warm to it if someone showed up at a meetup and shared their enthusiasm, but that pre-90s Ford look where everything looks identical and nothing looks good isn’t fair to the name the Thunderbird carried. At least there wasn’t a distended 90s bubble version?
On a less grumpy note, for no reason in particular I still remember the first time I ever saw one of these (gen 11), in a Walmart parking lot. It was the most exotic car I had ever seen in real life. With dial up and pre-Google I want to day it took me over a year to learn it was a Ford Thunderbird.
when i first saw the new ‘bird, i thought the front end looked like the ’53 vette, the rear looked like a new vw beetle, especially the tail lights. the early ‘birds were angular, with rear seemingly squatted as if drag racing. after the almost two decades, i like the thunderbird, bot it missed by so much the target.
I always liked these. It was a good design out of the factory, but it also took phenomenally well to mods. I’ve seen a couple aftermarket reworks that were just gorgeous – Ford stopped at 8 or 9 outta 10, it doesn’t take much to push it over the line.
The 11th Gen Thunderbird shared a platform with the Jaguar XK8 and Aston Martin DB7. It bears more than a passing resemblance
The Jaguar is a better buy. I got an 01 for $8,500 and the Thunderbirds are generally more for the same car with a worse interior.
Still, I’m glad they exist
The chassis they share was with the Jaguar S-Type and the Lincoln LS. Not the XK8 & DB7. I know as I was selling Fords from ’97-2020 and the first year, we got 9 of these (a presold, and got an extra one for stock). Fun car, EXCESSIVE chassis flex. And the 2003 was a better overall car than the 2002. Got a 30 HP bump and the select shift transmission.
But 2002 has one thing the subsequent MY cars didn’t have, Thunderbird Blue. 2002 year only and it was a gorgeous shade of blue (especially with the matching interior). But sadly 2002s, for what they cost ($40k…in 2002 ????) and NO heated seats? Come on Ford.
But I too am glad they came out. Gave us car guys something to talk about, especially at the dealerships. And I remember taking one home for the weekend to take to a car club meetup at a company picnic held by a large construction company for his employees (dad was a member of the local AACA regional club, who was invited to come display their cars for the employees to check out. Plus company owner was a HUGE collector and member). When I pulled in (this was late August 2002, when these were IMPOSSIBLE to get), EVERYONE was looking. It was surreal (and I was a 25 yr old salesperson, and felt like a celebrity, lol). The attention it got was crazy.
If someone asked which one to buy. Either the 007 Edition that Jinx drove, which is Coral and a beautiful color, or the 2004 Pacific Coast Roaster Edition in a great Monterey Mist Green & it came with the 16 spoke wheels. For cheap, yes, but there is a cutoff on where to stop. All depends on condition. A clean high mile for $10-12k? Why not. Upper $20k for a super clean low mileage car? No way! And yes, it would have been nice to see a manual equipped version but it was never meant to be. Sad as it would have been cool to see SVT so something with these.
Buy a Prowler. Buy an SSR. Buy a New Beetle convertible. Buy a PT Cruiser convertible. *Anything* but one of these. Plymouth knocked it out of the park. GM phoned it in. Ford didn’t even send a fax.
How is the reliability of that Jaguar powertrain in 2024?
Pretty good, actually. There were some early teething issues in the XK8 but they worked it out by the time the Thunderbirds rolled out
While I was among those who liked the idea of the new Retro-Bird.
But when it started showing up in the hands of the Tommy Bahama/Chicos/Jimmy Buffet crowd – it lost all pretense at coolness.
It also does not help when the soft-top is up that it balloons when the car is at speed – unlike every other modern convertible.
Then what did Ford do? They displayed a hardtop version of the same car and called it a Lincoln Mark-something concept.
Because nobody would notice there was a reskinned Thunderbird under there?
Just Ugh.
Millennial here, I bought a 2004 black Thunderbird in 2018 and just sold out last summer, perfect cruiser at the beach, the engine purred and driving combined the best of a Jag with American pizazz, I hated selling the car and miss it dearly but couldn’t for a baby seat in the two seater!
Look, I get it. I get why people dig it, and I don’t really hate it the way I used to (especially the drop-top, because the opera window on the hardtop is sinful)… but as a proud 10th-gen owner, I’m required to dislike the 11th gen. It’s on the entry exam.
YES! THANK YOU! Ever since I first laid my eyes on an 11th gen all those years ago, I’ve been in love! It was a perfect callback to the 50’s in almost every sense, and I’ve fantasized night and day of owning one. I even have a little black Maisto model! I’m glad someone else other than me finally recognizes the glory of the last of the bird. THANKS MERCEDES!!!!!
This car always just looked a bit off to me. It isn’t any one thing, but the entire design just looks not quite right. I don’t know what it needs though.
Maybe The Bishop or Adrian can do a few tweaks and fix it because it is almost there.
I would love to see Adrian do a “fix” of the design because I’m with you. Something about the design feels off, but I can’t point to any one thing. Each individual thing, I like. But put together… Eh.
It’s too fat and the proportions are wrong. The surfaces need deflating a bit, and the rear needs shortening. Plus the detailing is plain and the interior looks cheap.
Ever seen Chip Foose’s spin on it? https://www.chipfoose.com/speedbird/
Foose’s spin on it is better, but still a miss for me. It still looks just a bit off.
For me, some of it is the problem I have with the ’55 they used as inspiration—that shoulder line that droops to the rear, but here it doesn’t even have the bit of visual offset offered by tail fins. A bit more visual weight in the rear, like a faired in headrest/s with or without a fin on it/them or a lifted rear or something would probably fix it (though the latter would effect handling), but the worst part I think is the front. The headlights are too high up and/or far back and the fluting around the upper edge and sides of the lenses make it look too soft, downplays the curves of the fenders, and adds visual weight to the front, which would be toughest to fix. Maybe the fluting could be painted body color to kind of tone it down, but it would look like a cheap attempt to fix it. What I think it really needs is some kind of different headlight unit a little farther forward and lower, meeting a descending top forward fender line, but that’s getting into a lot of work for a car with a lackluster drivetrain. Then there’s the goofy, too-nostalgic grille with the Dagmar echoing fog lights. It’s too much, too cartoon. Those are the specific things that always annoyed me and it annoys me because the design was close to being good.
100% agree! The proportions are just off, really off
To me, it looks like they carved a bar of soap into the profile of the ’55 T-Bird and then painted T-bird-like lines on top of it. Kind of like old tin-litho toy cars of the 50s and 60s — a car-like shape with all of the details painted onto the surface. What came out was a bland approximation of what a T-bird should look like.
The interior didn’t help either; it was generically just like any other luxury car’s interior of the time. Even if it wasn’t lifted straight out of the parts bin, it looked like it was — just done up in a different color palette. Completely phoned-in.
The whole package seemingly whiffs on capturing the 1950s exuberance of the original. Ford dutifully copied the ’55 car, but somehow failed to bring forth the essence of what made it distinctive despite there being nothing quite like it at the time.
But it was lifted right out of the parts bin, the Lincoln LS. They gave the cluster blue pointers, slapped some “REAL METAL” trim pieces on it and called it a day.
Yeah, I like the interior color combos, but the design is unconvincingly too modern with the retro exterior. And while I certainly agree with Mercedes that cars now are far too “aggro styled” that’s more a problem of them doing it by adding a bunch of shitty lines, cuts, and edges for the effect. Good design can impart a sense of aggression (not uncommon in the old days) without looking like one of those overweight SOF wannabes loaded with tactical nonsense. This car needed more of that old honest aggression. With the headlights and grille, the front looks like a surprised puppy running, which while a cute image, is not appropriate here. The ’55 had jutting hooded headlights and the dagmars projected out where here they are fog lights. Those elements add a subtle, more unconscious sense of danger the new car could use without trying to be Tac Team Hamburger. Jutting headlights and dagmars aren’t the solution here, but the design should capture that feeling as the feel of the design is what people connect with. This apes the details and the superficial silhouette without understanding and capturing that emotion of the original and, not only does it make it less successful, it marks it out as a retro exercise that doesn’t stand much on its own merit and dates it quickly.
I think a good comparison here might be the Datsun S30 Z vs the new Z and the GR86 (of which I’ve owned the former and own the latter). The new Z recalls the lines and details of the original, but does a fairly poor job of grabbing the feel (and is a different class of vehicle, which at least the T-bird got right). The GR86 is much closer to what a new successor to the 240Z would be—it evokes the look and the feel, yet is modern in execution, it’s the same class of car, relative weight (it might even be lighter vs its contemporaries considering the increased weight of modern cars), in about the same price class, and relative performance. It’s even got the same displacement (though that’s not really relevant)! No liftback, unfortunately, but it’s also not actually trying to be a new Z.
It always felt a little weird for my European eye, and it looks in a way which can only be described as ‘American’, but I don’t hate it. Proportions are nice and it has this cool, elongated, streamlined look. I wonder what does Adrian think of this design?
It just looks old, as opposed to retro, like the same guy was locked up in the studio and doomed to keep redoing the same car for fifty years.
The thunderbird was definitely for the white New Balance crowd from the start. It wasn’t bad, but none of these pseudo-retro redo’s were good. PT Cruiser, HHR, FJ Cruiser, Prowler, Thunderbird, etc. Varying levels of not-good. I give credit for the muscle cars of this era however, as they got away with going retro for the most part. They weren’t GOOD, but they at least got away with the looks.
I agree with everything you said except for the FJ, which was not so much a retro-redo, but rather a fresh design that had a retro inspired name and various retro cues. It was also great and had proper 4wd with a powerful engine and a 6 speed manual.
I mean, I own and LOVE a GX-470 which was the basis for the FJ-Cruiser (J120 based), but I hate the way they butchered the 40 series shape and created something that had the worst visibility and interior. They could have done so much better.
they sell for relatively big money today. maybe the best value retention of any Toyota? I liked them, but the back was a dungeon.
That’s fair, they sacrificed some things for the styling.
Personally, I liked the look of them and friends who drove or owned them all raved about them, but the design certainly wasn’t for everyone.
At least the platform was available in so many flavors that there was something for everyone.
That Tbird though. I was 21 and working at Ford when the first one rolled in. The mechanics were drooling over it. I had seen it in so many publications and shows and found it to be odd and unappealing, like it was made for a very specific set of individuals in their 70s that were Tbird enthusiasts in the 50s.
In the flesh, it was just as unsexy.
Not surprised by the mediocre sales figures at all.
It needed that powerful engine because it was heavy as a pig, had blind spots the size of mountains and drank fuel like there was no tomorrow. The 4Runner was a better car in every single way.
God I love looking at the thunderbird history. Its so all over the place
Two seater, sedan, luxobarge, fancy mustang (some with turbo) cheap bmw 6 series, retro two seater.
Looking forward to the Ford thunderbird suv-coupe ????
Ha – you may be right! Like the apparently forthcoming Ford Capri crossover for Europe, over which Adrian has promised a meltdown of epic proportion.
I always liked these for some reason. I’m not surprised they sold poorly, though. They are good for only one thing: cruising with the top down on a nice day. If you need a car for transportation this is a very poor choice. Cars like the PT Cruiser and New Beetle sold well because, while they had retro designs, they were normal cars sold for normal car prices that could do normal car things. The Thunderbird was a non-luxurious car with a luxury car price tag that combined the utility of a sports car with the performance of a family sedan.
They are definitely cool cars, but a car needs a second selling point in addition to being cool to sell well. That second selling point could be almost anything (sporty, economical, ability to tow or haul, etc.). A car can’t be a one-trick pony, and unfortunately that is an apt descriptor for this generation Thunderbird.
This is pretty correct I think. The real gimmick was it sold the cool of the 50s in a 00s package.
Which appeals to people like me, but to the rest of the car buying public, it made little sense as what it really was, a reasonably sporting convertible, was outclassed by a bunch of other things on the market.
I think that’s a good point about why sales fell off. I’ve been focusing on design, but a lot of people liked them. They didn’t buy them, though, and limited practical functionality and high price were probably big reasons for this. It wasn’t appealing enough to people who could afford a toy at that price (and likely a lot more), not cheap enough for regular people to have as a toy, and not practical enough for people on who could compromise a little for a fun daily, but not that much as they still needed a car that could do regular car stuff.
I wonder if the issue is more unrealistic sales expectations than a lack of consumer interest. The Prowler and SSR are reasonable comps in terms of being cool but highly impractical vehicles. Chevy sold 24,000 SSRs and Plymouth/Chrysler sold 11,700 Prowlers. With that context, selling 68,000 Thunderbirds is good. I’m not sure why Ford thought they could move 25k of these per year. This was never going to be a high volume car.
Obviously, the New Beetle, HHR, and PT Cruiser sold in much greater numbers, but again, those are normal cars with retro styling. If anything, the PT Cruiser and HHR probably offered more utility than most of their non-retro competitors.
Another good point. I think large companies like that tend to think in the kinds of high volumes that their more mass appeal vehicles sell in and that either skews their ideas on what constitutes high volume, the finance people only accept huge numbers to consider something worthwhile, and/or they’re too optimized to produce large volumes to see enough profitability at lower volumes. It’s another reason I really like Akio Toyoda for not only selling the FRS/’86, but doing a second generation when the rarest option combos of their normal models probably outsell them. Of course, I also think that’s another reason they outsource the standalone sports cars and why a lot of people don’t seem to understand why they wouldn’t exist without that outsourcing and collaboration.
Ford missed the opportunity to work with Yamaha for a successor to the SHO’s 3.4L V8 in this car. A 4L V8 with Yamaha’s top end would have made more power. an amazing sound, and had much better reliability than Jaguar’s try…
Yamaha was working closely with Toyota at that time, bringing forth the memorable 2ZZ that same year.
Agree with Mercedes – this is retro done right. As in, it’s not largely just a copy of a previous design but rather it has cues/an ethos that calls back to an original while still being it’s own thing.
The Fox Body Mustang did this well too; the S197, not so much. Jack Telnack got it.
And for the record, the rare “base” argent silver alloys look sooo much better than the bling overkill chromed wheels that almost everyone got.
Strange to see this article! I saw one on my way to work and was thinking that it had aged enough that it might make a neat basis for a neat hot rod or retro rod toy.
New they were overpriced, the interior materials are just bad in a way all Fords of that era share, and for some reason I feel like the marketing was really aimed at boomer woman. It seemed like it quickly had the same stigma that befell the Lexus SC430, only with a more mid-western accent.
I think the design was a home run. I think the drive train was a sacrifice fly. Can’t help but wonder how this might have gone with a BMW-like six cylinder and manual combination, at least as an option. If I were doing this today, it’d have AWD, too. Still a stunner in the looks department and definitely worth a long look as a used purchase. I’d definitely be tempted to re-engine. As for two seats, that’s my favorite configuration. Nice write-up.
They needed a performance variant with the XJR motor.
Friend of mine bought one of the first ones that I drove, and unfortunately this T Bird didn’t handle well and the structure was jiggly. He sold it pretty quickly.
That said, I still like the way they look and would love to drive one now to see how they are.
So, I had some boomer friends who bought a 2003 Thunderbird new and promptly stopped by to show me it on the way home from the dealer. I have to admit, it looked pretty good at the time, especially the interior. Unfortunately, the thing was an absolute pile of crap and spent so much time at the dealer for repairs and waiting on parts that the dealer offered to buy it back (not lemon law, just out of sheer embarrassment I think) and my friends couldn’t have signed the bill of sale fast enough. They were long-time Ford people, but that nearly ended that relationship. The press may have fawned over these in their reviews, but it was hardly a secret that my friend’s experience was the norm back then, not an outlier.
Most of the negatives I’ve heard over the years have been about Jaguar-like reliability, too. Haven’t driven one, but I can imagine if Ford released a similar two-seater roadster today with a Coyote V8 under the hood and the option for a Tremec 6-speed, it would be a hoot to drive.
Yeah, the Jag parts seemed to be the biggest long-term issues, but with my friend’s car it was crap like the module that controls the windows and top just up and dying. Then the climate control stopped working. Then there was transmission issues, a rear end whine, leaks galore from the soft top – and those are just the few I remember, and is not at all an exhaustive list.
I’ve been eyeing a S-type v6 manual for just this purpose. Will a Coyote fit is my only conundrum, but I’d also take this T-bird and want the same silly thing.
How reliable is that Jaguar V8?
Jaguar engine and Ford parts? Well, I have to assume most of the ones that have survived to today have to be okay, right? Right??
Though, I suppose it could also be like early 2000s VW and they don’t get better with age.
I’ve always wondered that too, and further if the classic modular V8 would have been a better choice (though maybe it’s too big?)
The AJV8 was considered the most reliable engine ever put into the L322 Range Rover.
So……….kinda?
Most reliable engine ever put into a Land Rover is like saying: less corrupt politician, smarter TikToker or less drugged 90’s Countach owner. So, it’s not really saying much
2002 pricing adjusted for inflation makes this car $70,000 in today’s dollars. The price killed it. For the record, I thought this was a sharp looking car when it debuted and the I still think so.