Ford's Thunderbird Gets Axed

Forbes ^ | April 22, 2003 | Jerry Flint

[Timesink]

Backseat Driver

Ford's Thunderbird Gets Axed

Jerry Flint, 04.22.03, 7:00 AM ET



The news is out and official. Ford will kill the Thunderbird.

I've been down this road before. The original little T-bird, a two-seater, came out in 1954. It wasn't really a sports car, but it was great-looking. Sales were never much--15,000 to 18,000 a year. So the moneymen made it into a four-seater in 1958. Sales went up, all right. Ford built 87,000 in 1960, but the car never looked so good again. Eventually the Thunderbird evolved into a mediocre, bloated car that was put out its misery during the reign of Ford (nyse: F - news - people ) President Jacques Nasser.

A few years back, and with great hoopla, a new, sleek Thunderbird was unveiled on the auto show circuit. The car returned to its roots as a smaller, stylish, two-passenger convertible. The production vehicle came out late in 2001, and it turned heads wherever it went. But Ford expected sales of about 25,000 a year, and the car never met this goal.

For starters, the new Thunderbird came out a full year late. So much time had passed from the unveiling of the show car to the release of production models that the buying public had lost some its enthusiasm.

Quality was also a problem. The plastic top (for winter) scratched the body. And Ford dealers got an early reputation for ripping off customers by overcharging for the car. Although the car's exterior was beautiful, the interior was a bit of a letdown, especially for a car with a $40,000 price tag. And the T-Bird could have used a bit more pep.

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.

Ford figured it could sell 25,000 Thunderbirds a year at $40,000 apiece, but last year it moved only 19,000 cars. In first-quarter 2003 only 4,000 were sold. The automotive press went on a deathwatch.

Automotive News, the industry's fine trade publication, just reported that Steve Lyons, head of the Ford Division, said the Thunderbird run would end after four or five years, in 2005 or 2006.

"While it may go away for a short period of time, it may reappear from time to time," Lyons told Automotive News. "When you really stand back and think about the volumes we're trying to sell that vehicle in, it is meant to be a collector's item. And it doesn't have to have a production run every year."

Collectors' item? No, you don't sell 19,000 collector's item cars in a year.

I don't doubt for a moment that someone will suggest adding two backseats to the Bird to improve sales. Heck, someone will probably suggest making it a four-door. That happened once before, too.

Instead of fixing the Bird, making it right, selling it as it should be sold, Ford will kill it.

That's just part of the story at Ford product development. General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) has a low-volume car, too. It's called the Corvette. From time to time people have tried to kill the 'Vette. But people at GM seemed to understand that to kill the 'Vette would kill the company's spirit.

Ford is killing the Taurus, too. It will let the present model run until the rent-a-car companies don't want it. The replacement will be a smaller sedan, built off a Japanese Mazda platform, to be called the "Futura."

I think that some high-powered egos are at work here. The present management at Ford didn't create the Thunderbird. And the present management didn't create the Taurus. Rather than fix the problems, they'll start fresh with cars for which today's managers can take credit. That is, if these cars succeed.

These new managers also think that the names of Ford vehicles should start with the letter F. That's why the Windstar minivan is being renamed Freestar. And a new crossover wagon will be called the Freestyle. This strategy is silly and means nothing to anyone who doesn't work on executive row at Ford headquarters.

I remember when they killed the first two-passenger Bird. I thought that the car was beautiful. A Ford executive back then said, "Beauty is a good 10-day sales report." The original Thunderbird reminded people that Ford could build a beautiful car. Ditto for the short-lived new Thunderbird.

The news about its demise is ugly indeed.

[toddst]

The biggest problem with the 312 was breaking the crank in the center main.

I can't remember now what the specific failures were that caused our 312's to come unglued. Seems like they were lower end most often. We gave up after one & 1/2 seasons with the '57 T-bird. Now that '57 Chevy 283 was darn near blow-up proof. Usually got a full season out of one block and still could sell off the engine for street drag use.

I always enjoyed the Ford flathead V8's. They were fun and inexpensive to run due to parts being so common (unlike now.) I would enjoy having a '40 Ford coupe with one of the later '50 - '53 flathead engines. I loved those cars. Their sound is unique and they are surprisingly quick if warmed up some.

Ah, this brings back memories of days LONG gone by.

[AnAmericanMother]

I had two roomies in college from S. Bend, and Studebaker's closing down hit the town hard. The Avanti is being built (I believe) in Villa Rica, GA, which is just west of Atlanta and less than 30 minutes from my front door.

[Charles Martel]

The T-5 is the aluminum-cased 5-speed manual transmission that was used in the Ford 5.0 Mustangs until design changes in '94. Between '88 and '93 is your best bet for upgraded torque ratings. The T-5 has also been used in GM vehicles; the case differs slightly from one application to another to position the shifter correctly.

If a manual transmission and clutch sound like a painful modification, another popular transmission swap choice is the GM Turbo-Hydramatic 700-R4, a 4-speed automatic with overdrive.

It seems that both swaps entail some degree of difficulty, but both seem to really enhance the experience of driving these older cars. A friend of mine put a T-5 in a '66 Mustang and welded up a shift handle that looks just like the old factory 3-speed shifter. When you grab that knob to row through the gears, though, the shift lever moves through that tight, short shift pattern. I think I need to do the same to my '65! :-) If you consider the T-5, be sure to avoid the ones used in Thunderbird TurboCoupes and similar Fords with the 2.3 liter turbocharged 4-cylinder. The gear ratios are wrong for that 289, and the torque ratings are way too low. The T-5 install actually sounds easier; the 700-R4 is a big beast of a transmission that may require modification to the floorpans. Wish I knew more about the Stude 289 engine; the last time I saw one was about 25 years ago when a neighbor was working on his Studebaker pickup.

Check here for some transmission swap details and links.

[toddst]

Your narrative of the many vehicles you two have owned (good and bad) caused me to replay my own tape. I shudder to think how many cars I've had, some of them being honest to gosh junk.

I briefly had a Triumph Spitfire - bought new. What a disaster. Blew a head gasket in the first thousand miles, burned out the clutch shortly thereafter PLUS electrical problems (including one fire, of course.) Couldn't keep the hood latches closed, plus a whole assortment of other constantly irritating little glitches that just plain wouldn't stay fixed. Got rid of that pronto! What a horror (but I must admit that little car was fun for those - brief - periods when it did run OK.)

The only decent "new era" Ford I ever owned that I enjoyed was a 1963 1/2 Ford Falcon 2 door sedan, standard shift with the just released small-block 260 V8 engine. That car was a real gas! I liked it so much I swapped the engine out for a new high-performance 289 V8 (later to become a rip-tear engine available in the Ford Mustang and Shelby's Cobra.) Drove that car a couple of years but finally sold it to a Ford dealer who just "had" to have it.

I guess I'll stick with GM iron, since I generally am happy with what I buy, plus at age 63 I really don't drive all that much any more. I'm into the "Grandpa" thing now, which is more important to me than any wheels. Now my job (if I choose to accept it, and I do) is to spoil the little cuties as much as I want! Two girls, so far. I'm putty in their hands, as my daughter keeps pointing out. What fun!!

[John Lenin]

IT doesn't take an Ivy League accountant to figure out why they sold so few of them, 40k for T-bird ?

[Cacique]

bookmark bump for later

[only1percent]

I don't really think this is true, yet. GM has nothing on the lot of its American nameplates which resembles the 9-5 or the 9-3 in terms of styling or performance. The 2003 9-3's engine is a derivative of a broader GM platform engine, admittedly, but the 9-5 is still purebread. The next generation 9-5 (2005 or 2006) will be built on a GM "world car" platform, but hopefully it will retain remnants of the Saab excellence.

[bribriagain]

"That's just part of the story at Ford product development. General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) has a low-volume car, too. It's called the Corvette."

"Sorry, but the Euros have us beat hands down on styling, class, and dependability."

I own a 2001 triple black corvette. Pound for pound, dollar for dollar, it's the best sports car on the road. I eat beemers for lunch. Mustangs are a joke.

[Revolting cat!]

Automobile companies clear huge amounts on their products (and parts as well.) This is not the grocery business where a store clears one cent or less on a 75 cent can of kidney beans. I read somewhere that Ford cleared ~ $10,000 on a Ford Explorer. How much on the T-Bird? Who knows. But they've gotten used to high margins and, of course, they've spent lavishly on R&D and exec salaries. I bet they could sell this T-Bird for $25K.

[bribriagain]

I bought a Camry after the third transmission in as many Buicks I owned, died.

[bribriagain]

"Neither! You RUN down to the local BMW dealership and plop down $53K for a M3. 333HP 0-60 in 4.8 seconds."

2003 Corvette Z-06: $53K, 405 HP, 0-60 in 4.7 seconds.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I owned a 63 1/2 Falcon with a 4 speed and 6 banger. It was a fun car.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Like the ignition key in the floor ?

[Jhoffa_]

No!

It's a classic that's time is coming! It's beautiful!

This is insanity..

[P8riot]

Neither. They're both Fords.

[P8riot]

Actually you get one of these:

That is, when they become available.

[DCPatriot]

Okay, so General Motors requires 72 more horses to gain one-tenth of a second? What does THAT tell ya?

Plus, I would rather PUSH a BMW than DRIVE a Chevy. ;^)

[bribriagain]

"Plus, I would rather PUSH a BMW than DRIVE a Chevy. ;^)"

OK, with the exception of the vette, I would have to agree. But I submit if you haven't driven a vette, you haven't driven. Period. My vette can take any beemer on the road. And, if you read any recent issue of leading Car mags, the C5 vette tops any euro/US sports car on the market from a price/performance stand point.

[DCPatriot]

I'd be tempted to trade cars with you for the weekend, but I'm afraid you wouldn't give mine back.

I've owned 2 Corvettes. '64 and '66 Stingray convertibles. Apples and oranges, I'm sure.

I just think I'm getting more than the blue and white insignia in a Bimmer.

And, the M3 is in a class by itself. Try it. You'll like it. ;^)

[HamiltonJay]

Hell you can get a Jag XJ series in the 30s... I do agree though I think Ford completely mishandled the new Tbird.