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]

We have been happy with our Fords - although neither the Explorer nor the Expedition is going to set the pond on fire, they've been extremely reliable.

Glad to hear you've had good experiences with your Fords. I have friends who drive Expeditions and like them - plus put on many trouble-free miles.

I have a ten-year-old GMC Suburban that'd doing great. Will replace it with a new one when I start having too many problems with the '93.

My experience with GM vehicles has been excellent, for the most part. The worst one I had was an "84 El Dorado. The engine failed early (was replaced under warranty.) Other odd problems popped up from time to time, causing me to trade it once the warranty ended. Replaced it with an '87 Chevy Caprice that was nearly bullet-proof, mechanically. Most durable GM car I ever owned, traded it with 100,00 miles on (still got a good allowance) for the Suburban.

Ford better get its act together in engineering and quality control or few will have the experience you've described IMHO.

[DCPatriot]

"Do you by a Thunderbird for $40,000 or Jaguar XK for $69,975?"

Neither! You RUN down to the local BMW dealership and plop down $53K for a M3.

333HP 0-60 in 4.8 seconds.

A REAL penis extender! ;^)

[Petronski]

I traded in my last Vic with 158k miles because the red one I have now caught my eye. Now I have 118k and it's just getting warmed up. Ford mechanical quality has certainly made leaps and bounds in the 90s, and I would take a used Ford transmission over a new one from Chrysler any day.

And the Japanese models? Durable as all get out, but they're like lilliputian inside...about 7/8ths scale...and no low-end power. I don't equate power with the devilish whirring sound of a weed-eater, nor with the maniacal revving one might expect in a Dremel.

[Ciexyz]

My '84 T-Bird is still running and serves as my backup car. It's been dependable, but I had another '84 T-Bird that was nothing but a constant series of technical problems that nickle and dimed me to death, and even my auto repair shop said those problems shouldn't occur if the car had been built right.

[kellynla]

BACKGROUND: The Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service, and the Department of State report the current numbers of Americans who are unaccounted for in Southeast Asia:

AMERICANS UNACCOUNTED FOR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

COMPONENT COUNTRY OF LOSS


VN VS LA CB CH TOTALS
ARMY 9 479 101 28 0 617
NAVY 274 90 28 1 8 401
MARINE CORPS 23 195 16 8 0 242
AIR FORCE 217 160 254 18 0 649
COAST GUARD 0 1 0 0 0 1
CIVILIANS 1 20 12 5 0 38
TOTALS 524 945 411 60 8 1,948 *

This was the latest published report as of November, 2001.

[Petronski]

The Ford dealer told me that the 3.8L engine had this kind of problem (of course they couldn't have told me that when I was about to change it the first time!)

Ahh, the 3.8 was a real turd. And Ford shat in their own bed with all the lies they told about it.

I understand.

[liberalnot]

my favorite car of my life was the vw bug that i had after i got out of the navy!

[daviddennis]

The Jaguar S-Type actually uses Lincoln underpinnings - it's very similar to the Lincoln of about the same size.

The two-seater, however, is purebred Jag.

D

[pnz1]

Is Saab a Ford product, too?

[Flying Circus]

While an attractive car, it photographs much better that it looks in person. I was disappointed the first time I saw a real one. The hood is too short and the proportions don't work right.

On the same platform you can get a Jaguar or the Lincoln LS V8. From what I've heard the Lincoln is the car to get: similar price, is more practical, has excellent performance and looks good too.

[Ramcat]

"Is Saab a Ford product, too?"

Nope.
GM

[Vaduz]

99% of new cars look like potatoes

[ALOHA RONNIE]

'..GARDEN GROVE votes Free South Vietnam Flag -IN-, who's next..?'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/863430/posts

[ALOHA RONNIE]

'.."WE WERE SOLDIERS".. Vietnam Actor DON DUONG is FREE at Last..'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888311/posts


Signed:..ALOHA RONNIE Guyer / Vet-"WE WERE SOLDIERS" U.S. 7th Cavalry's Opening Days of the Vietnam War 1965-66

http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_collection.htm
(Photos)

[Tribune7]

I have a '99 Ford Ranger. I love it. OTOH, My dad has a '97 Lincoln. Everybody hates it and service has been bad.

I'd consider getting a new Ford truck. I don't think I'd get a Ford car.

[mn12]

Ahh, the 3.8 was a real turd. And Ford shat in their own bed with all the lies they told about it.

A former Lincoln-Marcury service manager told me that Ford has no idea why that engine had all the head gasket problems, but they started using an improved gasket that's just good enough to get through the warranty. Definitely an engine to avoid. I can't believe they're still using that piece of crap!

[ChefKeith]

The photo looks like it's a Chrysler product. Yeah, a "bloated" car, not at all like the original. What were the designers thinking?

No thinking involved... Just wind tunnel data.

That is why most cars these days are basically the same shape.

I miss the old days!

[AnAmericanMother]

The Sub is a little bit big for our family - there are only four of us plus a smallish Labrador who sits up in her seat just like everyone else (with her little dog seat belt on so she doesn't try to take the wheel). When we go "heavy camping" or to the beach with all our stuff (including two dog crates) we're a little cramped in the Expedition, but at least we can get it in the garage. And now that the kids are both in Scouts and doing lightweight backpacking instead of big-dome-tent-and-two-burner-Coleman-stove type camping, we have a lot less stuff to haul around.

We have never owned any GM product. My dad always had Studes (now he has a diesel Bimmer slug that is almost 30 years old and just keeps on). The Torino was our first car after my husband and I got married, then we had a '72 TR-6 (Prince of Darkness! Two, count 'em, TWO electrical fires), a Bimmer 2002tii (great car! the differential fell out on the street though) an old Toyota Landcruiser ute (off-roading in that thing triggered the birth of my first child - I still see it rolling around town, it will never die), a Volvo 245 DL wagon (reliable but dull - typical first baby car), a Volvo 4 door sedan (a rusted out dog, but it ran, and we only paid 2,000 clams for it in 1990!), then a Windstar, then the Explorer, then the Expedition (my 6'6" 240 # husband was pretty cramped in the Explorer).

We did have one Ford dog -- that execrable Windstar minivan with the horrible 3 liter engine. That stinking thing blew its head TWICE, once at 40k and again at 65k - the second time it literally separated from the block in huge clouds of steam that engulfed the cabin - I was on the shoulder and out of it with the Halon extinguisher in my hot sweaty hand in about 2 seconds - I was convinced it had exploded and was about to burn to the ground. I will say that the dealer was very nice about it and (1) fetched me within 30 minutes from the side of the road (2) gave me a free rental car (3) waived our warranty repair deductible (4) gave us a REALLY good trade-in allowance, much more than the car was worth. The chief mechanic said everybody knew that Ford had screwed the pooch on that one. Ford eventually came clean and offered reimbursements and various free stuff to those of us unfortunate enough to have bought a Windstar, but we weren't out of pocket so we didn't file a claim. But the dealer was such a gentleman about the whole thing that we've kept coming back (and recommended them to our friends as good honest guys).

[Charles Martel]

Does ford and GM design in house or do they subcontract. I heard they paid mercedez to design the short lived "merkur" series?

I had a Merkur (the XR4ti, not the later 4-door Scorpio). It was a fast, fun car - and had a much better chassis design than anything else in Ford's lineup at that time. The design was not the problem; it was based on one of the few Fords worth coveting - the (Euro-Ford) Sierra Cosworth. The Sierra (non-Cosworth model) was sold far longer in Europe than the Merkur was sold in the U.S., so the design was not short-lived. Ford's marketing plan for the U.S. variant of the car sucked beyond belief, though.

The Merkur was built by Karmann coachworks in Cologne, but I don't recall anything about Mercedes collaboration. It had a definite "German" feel to it, though - slamming the door produced a bank vault-like "thunk".

It's too bad about the Thunderbird, but Ford's marketing people missed the mark yet again. Just as the Merkur was intended to lure potential purchasers away from the BMW 3-series, the T-Bird was aimed at the sporty/luxury 2-seater crowd (BMW Z3, the new Lexus, Jag XK-8, etc.). Just like in the late '80s, buyers willing to buy those expensive imported cars just won't buy a domestic model, even if it comes close in quality and costs only 2/3rds as much as the import.

I hope Ford doesn't pull the plug on the GT-40 project next. The failure of the Thunderbird may or may not threaten a true limited-production model like the GT-40; there's no telling how the corporate bean counters will react.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

You are 100 correct. The dealer can make the difference. I wouldn't care if my dealership was still selling Studebakers as long as he backed them up.