It was back to the good, old Shenango River Valley region of northeastern Ohio / northwestern Pennsylvania for Thanksgiving with my other half’s extended family, just a few weeks ago. It’s probably a good thing that I wasn’t the one driving, as I would’ve made us take a bunch of detours and stops so I could photograph things. If my slight inability to focus with 100% clarity comes through in some of my posts, you should take a road trip with me some time. For all the classic cars and trucks I saw on the road and peeking out of country garages, I might have thought I was back in Michigan.
We passed this storage facility in the small CDP of Masury, Ohio, and I was able to snap this picture. I knew there was something I needed to do with this shot, given the rarity of both the Stude and the eighth-generation Ford Thunderbird in frame. Please pardon me for not being able to positively identify the Stude outside of being a 1956 – ’58 model (grille badges were missing or obscured), but I wasn’t about to trespass given the “Beware Of Dog” sign on the fence post. Similarly, the ‘Bird could be an ’81 or an ’82. But the common thread here was that both personal coupes were intended to provide somewhat distinctive transportation in their day.
To take this comparison further, I was curious to see how the base prices of both vehicles stacked up, adjusted for inflation in 2015. A base ’56 Studebaker Flight Hawk (a submodel that was a one year wonder) started at $1,986, with a 101-hp 185 CID six – about $17,400 in 2015. The newly-downsized ’80 Ford Thunderbird, with its (dog of a) 255 V8 with 115 hp, started at $6,816 – roughly $21,000 today. Both cars in base form had about 27.5 lbs. of curb weight to lug around per one horsepower. The Thunderbird would do 0-60 mph in about fifteen seconds, so I imagine the Flight Hawk’s performance would be similar (though I was unable to confirm the Stude’s 0-60 figure in my research).
The eight-generation T-bird isn’t my favorite, but I honestly don’t understand all the vitriol leveled at the styling of this mini-brougham. It seems to get the Shelley Hack- (of “Charlie’s Angels“) treatment simply for having replaced a well-loved character, the Torino-bird. I actually like the idea of a more personal, four-passenger Thunderbird. Yes, the proportions were a little off, but I liked the front and rear fascias, and I thought the body color bumpers looked modern and well-integrated. The only obvious details I really don’t care for are the unevenly-sized wheel arches, and the opera windows on those with the vinyl roof look a bit small. This ‘Bird paled in comparison to its larger, more expressively-styled predecessor, and the t-top option had gone away, but I do not find it ugly at all.
As for the Hawk, the clean look of the ’53 Loewy coupes had been somewhat compromised by ’56, but I do like the radiator-style grille and low, sleek stance. The fin-less rear of the ’56 still looks smooth and clean, and I’ve always liked the side character line, the shape of which echoed that of the rear quarter windows. Its styling does also strike me as more delicate and birdlike than that of the ’80 Thunderbird in this storage lot.
My love for the Hawk (and for Studebaker, in general) goes back to my teenage years. The ’59 Silver Hawk in the frame below was one of only a handful of cars next to which I had asked to have my picture taken at the Sloan Museum Auto Fair in Flint, Michigan in the summer of 1989. At that time, the Silver Hawk was roughly as old as that 1980 – ’82 Thunderbird in the Ohio storage lot is today. Cars seem to have changed more in the stretch of time between 1959 and 1989 than they did between 1980 and present day, but I realize this is debatable.
If I was offered the choice of either car in solid “2” or “3” condition, I might be tempted to go with the Hawk’s dramatic style over the Thunderbird’s safety features, comforts and conveniences. But then again, I might be moved by the right eight-generation T-Bird in great shape, in the right color, with the right options, and for the right price. I’d likely also have fewer fears of it getting stolen, versus the Stude. To be clear, neither is my absolute dream car, but it’s a fun question to ponder. I wonder if either “bird” in that Ohio lot is due for some love and attention in the near future. One can only hope.
The subject cars were as photographed by the author in Masury, Ohio, Saturday, November 28, 2015.
Sorry Joseph, but I cannot share your love for the early 80s TBird. This is the poster car for malaise. Its slogan should have been “Less of everything”.
It is telling that for more money (constant dollars) the lightweight V8 Bird could not outperform the wheezy, antiquated flathead six that traced back to 1939 and designed for a much smaller and lighter car.
I cannot help on the year of this Hawk, but no matter because I would pick it all day every day over the plucked Bird.
That is 100% legit, JPC. I never spent time behind the wheel of either car (which would be obvious with the Studebaker), nor did anyone in my family own this generation of Thunderbird.
My aunt owned a 7th-gen T-Bird (in dark green, IIRC), and that one seemed an impressive car. I guess my impressions of the 8th-gen Thunderbird are more from an aesthetics perspective, and taken on its own merits.
In late ’79 when the ’80 Thunderbird made its debut, I would have been in Kindergarten – and learning how to spot and identify cars correctly. I’m sure the newness/novelty of this new Thunderbird, combined with my newfound ability to read and so many other discoveries from being that age solidified in my young mind that these cars were exciting on some level. I will never be able to fully divorce my view of these 8th-gen ‘Birds from what it felt like to see one for the first time as a kid.
As for the Studebaker Hawks, I think they’re all just beautiful – even the pillared ones.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who quasi-likes the 8th generation Thunderbird. Yes, the design became dated quickly, and it was a dull performer, but I think it’s one of the best-looking cars from the boxy early-80s. I know that’s a minority opinion, but there… I got if off my chest. I’d go so far as to say the 8th-generation T-bird looks pretty good in its clichéd glory.
Last month I saw this nice two-tone example in a similar setting, behind an auto body shop. Hopefully this example still has a good future ahead of it.
See? I like that, too! I’m not crazy about the 5.0L Mustang wheels on it (something more fitting of its broughaminess might work better), but I also like the two-tone paint on it.
Much like Joseph noted in the article text, I like the front and rear of these Thunderbirds. The hidden lamps with wraparound reflectors have always struck a chord with me. (They also remind me of Geordi LaForge’s VISOR from Star Trek:TNG.) The rear fascia with full-width lamps is striking as well. The middle of the car is what lets it down, as well as somewhat dumpy proportions–with a slightly longer wheelbase, slightly less overhangs, and a more svelte C-pillar design, this could have been a legitimately good-looking car.
Come to think of it, the problems with the proportions of this car are almost the same problems suffered by the Panther coupes. Same stylist, or just a generic problem with the Ford design studio in the mid 70’s?
Personally I prefer the Studebaker Hawk any day over the T-Bird.
Anybody know if the chassis-flexing problems endemic to the ’53-’54 Loewy coupes were fixed for the Hawks?
It is my understanding that the worst of the chassis flex was fixed for the 1954 Starliners, by the use of heavier gauge steel in the frames. But I don’t think any of them could have been considered really stiff.
I once watched an old, rusty finned Hawk hit a pothole on a city street. Every single body panel did its own rattly little dance. Of course, the way these things rusted, that could have been the cause of that particular car’s floppiness.
I know I would take the Studebaker over the Deadly Sin 1980-82 T-Bird. If the 115 HP 255 V8 wasn’t bad enough for you and you waited a little while into the 1980 run you could have your Bird with the newly standard 85 HP 200 six trying desperately to move around over 3200 LBS of steel. If I wanted a proper example of a 1980 personal luxury coupe it would be a Grand Prix SJ or a Cutlass W30.
Well, we did once call the ’80 Thunderbird the Fubar Edition.
And what a great article that was, Jason! https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1980-ford-thunderbird-the-fabulous-fubar-edition/
Even if I kinda like these. LOL
“The Shelly Hack Treatment”. Absolutely classic! That Thunderbird…..not so much. But in its defense, I had a cousin who inherited an ’80 T-bird from her mom as her first car back in ’83 or ’84. It was a loaded red car with white vinyl top and white leather interior, with all the trimmings like wire wheel covers, opera lamps, moonroof and possibly a digital dash as well. It wasn’t ugly, per se, but when viewed through a lens that had just seen the fairly well executed downsized ’78 Monte Carlo, Cutlass and Grand Prix, it really wasn’t the greatest. If we’re being honest here, the overdone styling really didn’t even work as well as the Cordoba of the same era, which has been a punchline to more than its share of jokes. None of its competition was all that spectacular, but by comparison Ford really kinda dropped the ball with this one. Truthfully though, I wouldn’t kick one out of my garage. I kind of appreciate it for its “Kitsch Value”. But I’m weird that way.
Those eighth generation series were terrible vehicles. I rented a Cougar XR7 (same car) in Chicago when it was new. After ten days of driving I was glad to return it. Sloppy handling, poor fit and construction, flimsy trim and uninspiring ride quality. Probably the poorest new car I have ever driven.
Both of these Birds share a status of being compromised compared to their predecessor and successor. Both also suffered poor and declining sales.
I was the buyer demographic for mildly used Torino Birds, and when the ’80 came out, I wanted to like it, but couldn’t. I’d agree with Joseph that the front clip worked, and the straight on view of the back wasn’t bad, but odd proportions and a terrible and busy greenhouse were major problems. Add to that, the odor of what had been the budget Fairmont emanated from the cowl, windshield and A pillars. Ford struggled with the details on every car they downsized, and the ’80 Thunderbird is exhibit A.
The Stude coupe was a looker as a hardtop, but later in the run they made the inexplicable decision to offer it as a two door sedan only – roughly ’58 – ’61. Studebaker didn’t know it, but they had invented the personal luxury car a dozen years before the term started to be become common. They took their beautiful bird and called it a sporty car, luxury car, budget family car and used their typical oddball Studebaker nomenclature to give it all sorts of names. They finally resolved many of their sins with the new 1962 version, but it was too late. The ’50s version should have been simply called the Hawk, tracked the Chevy Bel-Air / Impala for standards, features and price, and have been something of a consistent halo car.
Perhaps not a surprise that these two old birds are sharing a common nest?
It’s rare that I see an 8th Gen Thunderbird these days. What few of them existed in the first place seem to have pretty much returned to the earth by now. A shame, that.
But, it’s hard to deny that the 8th Thunderbird and the downsized Mark VI were Ford’s two biggest misses of pretty much the entirety of the ’70s and ’80s. Both were cases where the preceding car was selling like hotcakes but had to die thanks to CAFE. Both were cases where Ford tried to take the same winning style and adapt it to one of their two modern platforms. Both came out of an era where Ford had steadily been losing profitability before finally losing what, at the time, was the second largest corporate loss in U.S. history for 1980.
I think the 8th Thunderbird serves as an excellent comparison to the 1977 Caprice, vis-a-vis how to better approach downsizing. GM did a clean-sheet design on a new platform specifically designed for the purpose. They went for fresh, clean, modern styling. They sweated the details. They made sure the content was there.
Ford took a new platform, but whether it was designed with the next Thunderbird in mind or just worked out that way is a fairly debatable point and one for which I have no valid answer. Ford tried to keep as much of the existing style and design as they could. They sweated the details. They made sure the content was there.
The only real difference between the two approaches was in the styling-GM’s decision to break away with something new, and Ford’s decision to keep the familiar. Both indicate their respective corporate thinking on how to approach the brave new world of gas shortages and the high-tech 1980s. Both companies sweated the details. Both companies made sure the content was there.
And that’s the thing-the buyer of a 1980 Thunderbird was *not* getting short-changed. All the materials offerings of 1977-1979 were still there. The color options were still there. The ability to customize a Thunderbird to your preference was still there. The luxurious baby-Lincoln Town Landau spec still offered as much luxury as the 1977 Town Landau, if not more.
It’s obvious to me, when comparing the 1977 Thunderbird (of which I have a jewel of a Town Landau example with 82,000 original miles from my great-aunt) to the 1980 Thunderbird, that Ford absolutely sweated the details. The materials, the packages, the amenities-all were obviously chosen with great care and deliberation. The 1980 Thunderbird shows the care and concern with which Ford designed the car.
But the styling… Taken as an isolated example, I think there’s a certain attractiveness to the 8th Thunderbird. I think the clean-up and squaring-off of the 1977’s lines plays well on the smaller package.
Let’s be real here. My ’77, equipped with a 400 cubic-inch V8, is a dog if you plant your foot. It’ll do 0-60 in f— you (which IIRC is somewhere between 12 and 13 seconds), and you can watch the gas gauge for that 26-gallon tank visibly move at roughly the same rate as the car. But, it makes an aural symphony that tickles my ears, and it drives with supreme and comfortable ease around town or accelerating like a civilized human being. That mountain of torque means I never worry if I’m just pulling out into traffic, and I don’t feel like I’m the guy holding up a line of cars behind me.
And I imagine the 1980 was similar in that regard-slow as dirt with the pedal down, but plenty spry enough to drive around town with ease. I imagine the 1980 was like driving a 1977 with one of the lower-spec engines (a 302, a 351W, or a 351M-the 400 was the top-spec and mostly reserved for the Town Landau).
But, as it did with the Mark VI, having such resemblance to its immediate predecessor screams “LESS IS ACTUALLY LESS!” even if you were actually getting at least as much content with effectively as much power and certainly with as much comfort. It wasn’t for lack of effort that the 1980 Thunderbird did so poorly. Ford misjudged the market, plain and simple, and stayed more conservative with their styling choices.
In the end, I’d assert that Ford’s conservative approach to the 1980s, while painful in the short run, gave them enough time to figure out a proper strategy. GM got the early lead with the Caprice, but I would assert the sales success of the B-Bodies showed them the wrong course, that everything from the past had to go, that everything had to be front-drive, that technology was the way. GM threw the baby out with the bathwater. Conversely, Ford took the lessons of the 8th generation Thunderbird and the Mark VI and the Fairmont forward with them. Ford never made a small Lincoln, and instead they kept the class and grace of Lincoln intact through to the mid-’90s. Ford got out of the brougham era much earlier than did GM (I’m not counting vestigial vinyl roofs and the like; I’m talking more as a design ethos) and realized the high-tech 1980s was leaving rolling bordellos and formal rooflines behind.
And I feel as though I should have some comment on the Studebaker, but honestly, I’m not convinced I’ve ever seen one of these in real life. I just don’t have enough knowledge to form a comment one way or the other.
I have to disagree with you on the way the 80 TBird drove. Your late 70s model was blessed with lots of torque and decent gearing. The 80 I drove when my Uncle Bob bought one (because “your Aunt has always wanted a Thunderbird”) was awful.
I owned a slant six Scamp at the time, so was not used to an abundance of power. The 255 V8 was not a fountain of torque to begin with, but add in a too-tall axle and the new AOD tranny that seemed designed to work pleasantly behind nothing less than a 460 (which, of course, it was never paired with) made for an actively unpleasant driving experience.
I wanted to like this brand new design, but frankly couldn’t wait to park the thing and get out of it. One of these with the 3 speed C5 might have been tolerable, but that AOD managed to suck the life out of the little V8. The Ford design that made the torque converter lock up simultaneously with the shift into 3rd gear was an awful design when paired with the kinds of engines and axle ratios demanded by CAFE. The GM cars of that era (at least the ones I experienced) drove so much nicer.
Ford never made a small Lincoln? What about the Versailles and the Fox Continental?
Those were smaller than full-sized, but Ford never went as small as Cadillac did with the Cimerron or, arguably, the 3rd Seville.
Xequar, I loved reading all of your excellent analysis – I felt like I was reading a great CC entry. I especially liked that yours was a somewhat sympathetic take on the 8th-generation Thunderbird, coming from the owner of a gen-7.
As a car crazy teen, I recall disappointment and confusion when Ford downsized and reworked the T-bird and Lincolns for 1980. Their efforts to keep the old, fussy and complicated traditional styling cues resulted in malformed, poorly-proportioned cars, that nobody liked. Too small for the tradional buyer and too baroque for younger and import buyers.
It is interesting the T-bird and Mark were hastily replaced, but the Town Car found success in this styling compromise
My grandma drove a ’80 T bird from new until about 2005, it’s been in storage at my parents’ house ever since, I had the option of inheriting it, but I’m too tall, my head is brushing the roof, but it was a great car for my 5′ tall grandma.
I wonder if it would have been a better deal to make the 80 Thunderbird on the Panther instead of the Fox? Everyone was so big-car panicky back then though, they probably thought the Fox was the smarter move.
One my earliest automotive memories is my parents having a brand new loaded up Town Landau Thunderbird for a couple of days when they were car shopping, dark blue with a cream interior, I remember the alloy wheels, digital dash and the keypad on the door, so the car left a lasting impression, my dad still bought an Eldorado anyway.
“I wonder if it would have been a better deal to make the 80 Thunderbird on the Panther instead of the Fox? ”
Interesting questions – this is what they did with the Mark VI. Perhaps they were trying to avoid going back to the 1972-76 era when the TBird was so visibly a discount Mark IV. But it’s not like the Mark VI was either attractive or good either. Thinking this over, I think I am in the 1% of top haters of 1980-82 TBirds and Mark VIs.
The other question is why the Fairmont Futura got such a sportier/interesting roof, similar to the 77-79 Thunderbird, and the 80 T-Bird got such a conservative roof?
These T-birds suffer from a similar fate as the 1986 GM E-bodies, where you have a more expensive car that looks too much like a cheaper car that pre-dates it, combined with “too formal” styling cues on a smaller body, a personal luxury coupe is more of an emotional purchase decision, if you take too much of the “snaz” out of it, you end up missing the mark.
Well damn, I never realized how similar the Futura’s roofline was to the 7th Thunderbird’s! After looking at both, I can’t understand why Fairmont Futura got that roof and Thunderbird got a formal roof.
Maybe Ford was trying to move Thunderbird further upscale? Perhaps they just didn’t want sporty looks the car couldn’t live up to?
What has been seen cannot be unseen.
One possible theory is that they had a Fox Thunderbird design back when the Fairmont was coming out and it was squashed by Hank the Deuce or Lido and this was all the managed to survive.
The Futura roof had a baby Thunderbird thing going on. While it did wonders to improve the intensely prosaic Fairmont coupe, the concept was wasted by the time T-Bird went Fox.
Had they saved it, the Futura roof done with frameless door glass would have made an interesting successor to the ’77-’79 T-Bird.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
Edit: xequar beat me to it.
But as of 1980, NO domestic Ford product (that I can think of) had frameless door glass. They wouldn’t have specially engineered such a thing just for the Thunderbird. This remained the case until the introduction of T-top and convertible Fox Mustangs, a few years later.
I think T-tops were available on the Fox Mustang from the start, at least that’s what Jackie Stewarrrrrrrrrrrrrt said….
The Mustang Deuce also had T-tops.
The 1981 Ford brochure at Old Car Brochures mentions “the exciting new T-roof option” for 1981 Mustangs, which conforms to what I remember – not offered until the third year of the design.
The Pace Car with the T-tops must have thrown me off, I guess they were custom made, I don’t really pay an attention to these, all I know about the early Fox Mustangs I know from this ad……
I thought the same thing, Carmine.
My B-I-L had a 1980 or 81 Mustang with the T-tops. And yes, they leaked like sieves, as did almost all of them.
“These T-birds suffer from a similar fate as the 1986 GM E-bodies”
I had not thought of it in precisely this way, but I think you are exactly right. Neither was an actively bad car (although I come close to declaring the TBird as one), but both cars were big marketplace failures. Downsizing done wrong.
The 1980-82 Thunderbird and Cougar were worse than the 1986 GM E-bodies, in my opinion. The Thunderbird and Cougar were seriously unattractive cars. I remember seeing photos of the cars for the first time (I believe it was in an issue of Motor Trend), and thinking that the proportions were wrong and the details overdone. They don’t look any better in real life.
The 1986 GM E-bodies were too bland, particularly in view of their intended mission and market slot, but not necessarily ugly. They looked like N-bodies with more bling.
“There’s a little bit of ‘Bird in every Futura!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqG04UrshiI
So sayeth the 1978 Ford Fairmont Futura commercial. Earlier they talk about the distinctive styling touches reflected in “Baby ‘Bird.”
So pretty much it looks like they painted themselves into a corner. Had they used that roofline in 1980 for the Thunderbird, it would have just been an obvious rebadge of the Fairmont Futura. Makes me wonder if they were considering going really downsized with Thunderbird for ’77 and got gunshy before they pulled the trigger.
Hmm…
That’s a pretty good theory you’ve got there. The Futura looks so much like a downsized Thunderbird, maybe they did intend it to be the new T-bird but chickened out at the last minute (pun intended).
If you think of the Fairmont as the Falcon replacement for the 80’s, then the Fairmont Futura is the Falcon Futura of the 80’s. They were using the same idiom as the 60’s Falcon line up, essentially. All that was missing was convertibles.
I think because of predicted (or imagined) fuel shortage and CAFE regulations, Ford (wisely) aped GM & Mopar by bringing their luxury or prestige coupes on a common platform. That they went (or were forced to go) full-Iacocca on them is a blunder I can’t explain. At least the 1983 versions were greatly improved.
I still greatly dislike the 80-82 Tbirds but seeing one without the vinyl half roof cap 99% of them seemingly had is a treat. I probably wouldn’t dislike this generation so much if more looked like this one
I used to pal around with a guy who had one of those ‘Chunderbirds’ when we were in H.S. Between the outside and inside, it had 3 shades of ugly tan on it, and all the bushings in the front suspension squeaked and groaned worse than the residents of 10 nursing homes. And slow? A slug on a bed of salt could outrun that turd. But hey, when youre 16, beggars cant be choosers right?
There’s something about a long lens that makes a car look good.
My HS drivers ed teacher had a Golden Hawk with the supercharger, 4 bbl, and 4 speed as his daily driver in 1974. It was a hell of a fast car for the time.
OK, I’ll admit I actually owned an 82 T-Bird, purchased in 1988 and owned until 1990. It was a creampuff with only about 40,000 miles on it that I purchased from a Ford dealer lot in NE Ohio for $3,000. Though I was not in love with the styling, the car was just what I was looking for as comfortable transportation for my job of selling advertising in the northern Ohio area. The seats were extremely comfortable, the ride was soothing, the noise level was quiet, the fuel economy was acceptable and the rumble of the V8 under the hood was satisfying! What more could I want given the $3,000 price tag. In two years of driving I chalked up another 40,000 miles with minimal upkeep. The only problem I recall was a failed water pump and a quick call on my cell phone brought a tow truck to the scene within an hour or so. I kind of wished I had kept it longer but my daughter was starting college so I decided to swap it for a new 1990 Ford Festiva for maximum economy. Truth be told, I was actually afraid for my life in the Festiva and only kept it a few months, ending up with a 1990 Audi 80 which was far more to my liking. But, styling aside, I was quite fond of my 82 T-Bird. My wife never liked it though and never rode in it often. She liked the Audi even less. I still have the wife though (45 years) and she does all the driving now in our 2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid. One of these days I’ll have to switch out the photo of the Volvo V-70 that we swapped for the Fusion.
I am another 80 bird owner. I was in high school when they came out and just about cried when I saw what they had done to the thunderbird. fast forward 15 years and I needed fast and cheap wheels when the wiring harness in my Cadillac went scorched earth. a buddy had a plain jane 80 bird, 255 v-8. during the couple years I had the car I actually grew to like it! but did I think of it as a “THUNDERBIRD”…hell no! in my mind I matched it to fairmounts, malibus and diplomats of the period. from that perspective it didn’t look so bad and actually drove pretty well. it also gave me 30,000+ miles of driving with no problems whatsoever til it was totaled.
so I can look back on it from both perspectives. as a personal luxury car with its history, it was a complete and total failure. but as a cheap to run, small car it definitely hit the spot. even today if I was looking for a tbird “toy” I would run, not walk past one. but if I was looking for a decent “old” daily driver I wouldn’t hesitate.
Joseph, I have to admit it is so very strange to see pix of my hometown on an international blog. You’re going to make Masury, OH, famous soon!
LOL – Geozinger, I actually did think of you when I was putting this one together.