Birds have been increasingly visible in my neighborhood this spring, and I’m thrilled. The day of this writing, I had just returned from the local grocery store and had passed a sparrow, a pigeon, and a couple of robins feeding on something that had been left at a curb on my block. I’ve written about my love for birds at CC before, but today it struck me that some of the things about them that resonate with me are their quick reflexes and ability to fly, which allow them to take off at the first, perceived sign of danger. They can just go away instantaneously, far out of the reach of would-be predators. It’s now warm enough for me to sleep with my windows cracked open, and I awaken to the sounds of bird calls echoing throughout my forest of a neighborhood.
Chicago didn’t get much of a winter this year, as I had mentioned in an essay on a Dodge Shadow that ran earlier this year. Aside from one really cold snap in the middle of January, it snowed maybe four times during the three, official months of winter, with only one of those times generating any notable accumulation. This was after it snowed early on Halloween at the end of October, when I had begun to gear up for the kind of big winter I had come to expect in over twenty years of living here. That formidable snowfall never came, and while I welcomed that respite from traditionally intense Chicago winters, it was also really alarming, given that this is the third straight year or so that winter has seemed but a mild wisp with a dusting of snow.
Among many detrimental effects of what appears to be significant climate change is that birds are getting confused. Some species may start their migration northward prematurely, when the fuel and resources they need for the journey to their seasonal destinations aren’t yet widely available. It isn’t just about getting the groceries. These trends in changing weather patterns have also been shown to affect where birds migrate, how many eggs they lay, and even the size of their bodies, which has decreased with the increase in temperature. Wildfires aren’t new (said the insurance underwriter), but increased frequency and severity of wildfire catastrophes have also eliminated many natural habitats.
It seems that many birds are just doing what they need to do to survive: lay another batch of eggs, and propagate their species in light of many changes in their environment. Humans also adapt. So did the Ford Thunderbird. Want to talk about a bird that just kept evolving with changing climates, albeit automotive ones? The T-Bird started out as a lithe, little, V8-powered roadster; gained a back seat in its second generation as it became a personal car; got still bigger by the end of the sixties, lost the convertible, and added a four-door sedan; became an absolute behemoth; shrunk in the drier twice, first for ’77 and again just three years later; set aerodynamic styling trends in the mid-’80s… and then became what we see here, before one last gasp as a roadster (again).
I was in high school when the tenth generation Thunderbird arrived in the fall of ’88, and it was truly stunning, especially in Super Coupe form. It was also expensive, owing much to a development budget that had been significantly exceeded. (You can read about that here in an excellent essay by Jason Shafer.) Toward the end of its run after nine years of production for ’97, I found it decidedly… just okay. Maybe this was because I was living in southwestern Florida at the time, but these Thunderbirds seemed by then more like something your Aunt Vickie drove versus the car of choice for affluent, aspirational, middle-aged professionals. The high-performance SC with its supercharged, 230-hp 3.8L Essex V6 had bowed out after ’95, so for the year of our featured car, it was an LX or nothing. Two engines were available – either the base 3.8L with 140 horsepower, or the optional 4.6L V8 with 205 horses.
This one has the V8, if my license plate search results are accurate. It was built in Lorain, Ohio. The ’96 base price of about $17,500 translates to almost exactly twice that in 2024 dollars. Sales of about 86,500 for ’96 seem solid to me for a car that was already in its eighth year of production, especially in the rapidly shrinking coupe market of that time. Also in ’96, Mercury moved about 39,700 Cougars, Buick sold just under 6,000 two-door Regals and 17,400 Rivieras, and Chevrolet’s evergreen Monte Carlo managed 80,700 units. The rear-drive Thunderbird still dominated what was left of its market.
The Thunderbird ultimately didn’t survive the changing climate of the automotive landscape even after returning as a convertible for an eleventh generation, but extinction seems to have been the case for many mainstream, domestic passenger car models, regardless of body style. Automotive climate change has been very real. Where have all the tenth-generation Thunderbirds flown? That this one had even piqued my curiosity enough for me to stop and photograph it had given me pause to reflect on how few of them I’ve seen lately, which is to say hardly any. According to multiple sources, emperor penguins aren’t expected to last through the end of this century before becoming extinct, due to warming global temperatures and melting sea ice. Like that species of aquatic bird, I don’t expect to ride out this century, either, but this has given me only more reason to try to live more responsibly and enjoy things the way they are now.
Downtown, The Loop, Chicago, Illinois.
Thursday, April 4, 2024.
Print materials were sourced from the internet.
To inject the politically charged theory of “Climate Change” except as tongue in cheek satire doesn’t belong here.
That said, I loved this generation of T-Bird.
It reminded me of a BMW 6-series coupe.
Although beyond my budget – I was rolling a year old Ranger – I bemoaned the digital guages (analog were only found in the Base and Super Coupe).
A curious mix of the last batch at the Ford dealer (I never grew out of the carqueer kid phase) had a turquoise Bird in the grille.
I saw no pattern among models or VIN’s.
A guess would be the last batch made, similar to GM’s Silver Arrow Rivieras, but without publicity.
Any info on this would be appreciated
Climate change is not a “politically charged theory” but rather an incontrovertible fact. I spent several years working for the National Weather Service and have been to about 75 of their nationwide offices and spoken with hundreds of the most experienced and knowledgeable meteorologists in the US of every imaginable political persuasion. There is not a shred of doubt amongst them that climate has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, and have historical records and statistics to back that up. Politicians can argue what the best response is to the crisis, but not truthfully whether or not it exists.
You are the only one that has injected politics here. Joseph only referred to the unassailable fact of climate change based on objectively measurable increases in the earth’s temperature and the resulting consequences (like migration), and not the theory as to what is causing it. Thus it’s your comment that doesn’t belong here.
C’mon Paul. Don’t be coy. Joseph’s statements certainly had political overtones…which is fine. But don’t pretend otherwise just to feign indignation when someone else points out his loaded language.
He’s only talked about the unassailable fact that the earth’s climate has been getting warmer since the pre-industrial era having affected migration patterns. If you think that making observations of the effects of global warming “certainly has political overtones” and is “loaded language” than we have nothing further to discuss.
I’ll add this: given the absolute obviousness and scientific unanimity about the human cause of global warming is not really political at all, and as such, it’s perfectly fine to refer to it in our content and comments. It is highly political to make the statement the original commenter made, turning a simple reality of life and an accurate observation of changing migration patterns into “a politically charged theory” or referring to it as “loaded language”.
I should have just deleted the original comment, and saved myself and Joseph this waste of time of replying.
“unassailable “, sure.
Wildfires has far more to do with poor forestry policy than the Earth heating up 1 degree celsius over the last 100 years
Really getting sick of all the politics you inject around here Paul.
How about we have a site just dedicated to cars?
I just want to say this about politics / politically charged whatever, just to provide some insight. As La673 alluded to, assigning a political stance to climate change would be saying ____ is responsible and vote for _____.
My very industry, property insurance, is inextricably tied to climate change and it’s effects, specifically around the increased severity and frequency of weather-related catastrophic events over the past couple of decades or so. In a general sense, and not related to any spefic carrier, more claims (and more serious claims) are going to have an effect an the financial health of any property insurance carrier.
And as with any workplace, there are all different political associations among my coworkers and presumably the leadership. There’s no conspiracy. Climate change is real, or an increase in hurricanes, floods, and wildfires hasn’t happened.
At the end of the day, also, this is an opinion piece, so I trust that many take it as such. I’m not a confrontational person, but I write about things and experiences important to me as they relate to my subject cars on some level. I assume that many just skip my essays if they don’t like what I put out. I’m 100% great with that. I’m not for everyone.
Insurance is going through the roof because of inflation. Go hire a contractor right now and see what they’re charging. It’s not because the Earth is .001 degree warmer than it was 4 years ago.
I was going to reply to your prior post directed at Paul, but it appears replies have been disabled for that particular comment. Guess that’s what he means when he talks about the science being “unassailable”. Anything is unassailable when all dissenting viewpoints are squashed.
I respect Joseph’s thoughtful and measured response on the topic, even if I don’t agree 100% with everything he says. We’re all entitled to our opinions. Paul, however, can be far more abrupt and sanctimonious in his demeanor on these forums when certain topics are broached….and this is hardly the first time he’s been that way. I suppose that’s his privilege as it’s his playpen. I assume this comment soon will be deleted by him…but wanted him to read this anyway.
We know all about what’s driving construction prices – it’s part of our education as professionals in the insurance industry. Contractors, materials, labor… it’s all getting more expensive. And companies have to remain profitable. It ain’t the Salvation Army. There has to be money available to pay claims for policyholders, and no one is done any favors if a company becomes insolvent.
But that’s beside the sidebar point I was making about more (and more serious) weather-related events happening with increased frequency. I just feel bad for people who can no longer get good insurance in areas that are getting hammered by the worst by all of these bad storms that are happening more frequently than before. I’m pretty sure if I ever went back to Fort Myers Beach, I wouldn’t recognize anything but the Gulf.
That updated nose clip on the Thunderbird blew me away as a 20-something car nut.
Just curious: What platform was the Thunderbird riding on by the mid-1990s?
Same since 1989, the MN-12.
When I was looking at pictures of early 10th generation Thunderbirds, I had forgotten how the original ones looked without the grille above the bumper. I like both looks, but the later ones (like the refreshed models you referred to) seem like the default to me now. The refreshed MN-12s incorporated a traditional grille opening more successfully than the Crown Victorias of the early ’90s, IMO.
Thanks Joe. A car I bought new is now featured as a CC and is 28 years old. I feel so youthful after this!
These were great cars but even when I bought mine (and it had a turquoise inset in the bird emblem in the grille) they were getting long in the tooth. That said, I felt Ford had done a pretty decent job of keeping them updated. The 4.6 had just replaced the 5.0 plus updated the interiors for ’94 and Ford had tweaked the beak for ’96.
Overall, the Thunderbird mimicked life itself. It seems things often evolve in cycles. The Thunderbird itself was simply a (perhaps more specialized) component of the automotive cycle that has given us many automotive names that ran their course, replaced by others that were a reflection of a more contemporary time. Do I miss the Thunderbird? Yes. Would I want another? Not at this time, as my own personal life cycle would not really accommodate one. Nor would my garage happily accommodate another ’75 Thunderbird, the most hard to miss expression of the Thunderbird nameplate.
I’m glad you got pictures of this one. It makes me feel like I’m in my early 20s again.
Jason, I always forget you had one of these! For whatever reason, I more closely associate you with the ’75 I remember reading about, probably first. A car like a ’96 Thunderbird would have been way, way nicer than something I would have owned, even in my late 20s, but I did enjoy driving my base-model ’96 Probe with its five-speed. I like your metaphor about the Thunderbird having echoed life cycles in real time. With that said, a modern Thunderbird Landau sedan – or, more accurately, a Mach-E style CUV with the T-Bird badge might have been where things went in 2024 had it not gone extinct.
I bought two of the MN-12’s new. A 1993 LX with a 5.0L and a 1997 LX with a 4.6L.
The 1993 wasn’t even out of warranty when I started tinkering with it. I did a CAT back exhaust and a gear swap from 3.08 to 3.55. This one was “Mocha Frost” (light gold) with a khaki interior and to this day; my wife says this was her favorite car of the 15 or so we’d purchased over the years (Including an ’89 SHO Taurus).
The 1997 was “Laser Red” with a gray interior. I pretty much left it alone since I had a project car taking all my “tinkering time”. She enjoyed it but not as much as the ’93.
My son loved that ’93 so much that when he was 17 we found him a black ’93 LX with a 5.0L around 2007. A lady pulled out in front of him and essentially totaled that car. He found another teal ’93 but with a V-6. We pulled the 5.0L out and swapped the engine, ecm, transmission, rear axle cradle assembly, and front springs into the teal car. He drove it for 3 years and a collision with a deer caused it’s demise. That 5.0L now resides in his 83 F-100 and that 8.8 IRS cradle is scheduled to be installed into a 71 Torino GT Convertible.
MN-12’s hold a special place in my heart. They were good driving cars with respectable power and good handling (for what they were). Two things for certain though…they were heavy and they were a pain in the butt (hands, arms, shoulders) to work on.
Forgot to mention that my little brother bought a ’93 LX with a 5.0L used in 1996 because of ours. His was also teal (I believe they called it Cayman Green). and kept it until it rolled 175K miles. His wife also loved that car but with two car seats, it was not practical for them.
My roommate from about 2005 owned one of these late 10th-gen Thunderbirds, also blue though I remember it being a shade darker. We had to juggle a driveway that only allowed access to one car at a time, which meant I had to occasionally drive the T-Bird briefly to move my car out from behind it. My overriding impression of the car was just – ordinariness. RWD was becoming rare in affordable midsize cars, and IRS and an available V8 (can’t remember if this car had it) were also distinctions, but they weren’t enough to make it stand out (though admittedly driving it at above parking speeds would have been necessary for any of those attributes to matter). When you were in any T-Bird from 1958 to 1976 though, you knew you were in something special; the mid-’90s T-Bird interior looked like it was from a low-trim Taurus. Exterior style was better, but seemed a bit humdrum by this time and again nothing like the unmistakable late-’50s through ’70s models. The Thunderbird had become just another Ford, whereas it was once treated almost like a separate marque.
Thank you for this. I’m trying to remember if I had ever ridden in one of these MN-12s, just for a frame of reference regarding impressions of its interior, and I honestly can’t remember if I had.
So many PLCs from decades before, and I’m thinking of the Grand Prix and Monte Carlo, had become stand-ins for what has previously been just two-door versions of midsizers. I think the Thunderbird still has enough to set it apart in terms of not just its great exterior styling, but also RWD configuration, IRS, and available V8.
The interior was redesigned when passenger-side airbags were added. The original setup drew criticism from the press for looking/feeling a bit cheap, but I actually thought it was reasonably nice, and considerably better than the plasticy interior fitted to the later models. The MN12 Cougar had a roomy rear seat with more headroom and legroom than the Thunderbird because its squared-off roofline allowed the seat to be pushed back some. Some Cougars also had plusher fabrics and trim than the T-Birds used. Agreed that the T-Bird was more like a real PLC than the competing GM models; though I’m not sure Ford’s investment in a bespoke platform for just the T-Bird/Cougar paid off
This is my 1994 Super Coupe, with a 5 speed manual trans. I got it in 1997. I also have a 1997 Cougar XR7 with the 4.6 V8 that I got a few years ago. The MN12 platform Thunderbird was Ford’s answer to the 600 series BMW Coupe. Car and Driver found that the performance of the Super Coupe was comparable, but it was not as refined. These cars were pretty sophisticated for the time, with independent rear suspension, 4 wheel disc brakes, automatic ride control, and an intercooled supercharged 3.8 V6. I love mine. It’s all about comfortable high speed touring.
My pic didn’t post.
JV, try reducing the file size and try again. We’d love to see your SC. (Used to happen to me all the time in the comments.)
I remember falling hard for the Thunderbird when this version hit showrooms. But then I saw one up close and was chagrined at how Ford had cheaped out on the trim details and especially the interiors – I later learned because the car had gone so grossly over budget during its development.
I always felt that Ford blew it by not offering the Mustang’s V8 with a 5 speed, but then again so few auto manufacturers cater to my whims.
I always kind of thought I might end up with one of these as an older used car, but I never did. I still like them, and one with the same running gear as my 93 Crown Victoria would be a nice drive.
Reading Jason Shafer’s article on these was revelatory for me at the time. I honestly couldn’t remember having read any of the backstory behind how the development budget had gone so far over. Given that, I think the interior of the end product ended up just fine, if pictures I’ve seen online are any indication.
Of course, I realize that pictures are different than tactile feel, etc., but even if the interiors don’t scale the heights of some of what had come before, they still look plenty nice to me.
Great writeup.
I have also observed a much earlier return from migration by bird species here. We don’t usually see the first robin until mid April, this year it made its appearance a good 2-3 weeks earlier, and in greater numbers.
Joseph, you presented your facts on climate change in the most non offensive way imaginable. To me, that’s the best way to bring about discussion and opinion sharing. Thank you for presenting your point of view here. My own assessment is that climate change has only accelerated in recent years. This past winter was the most non-winter conditions I have ever observed in my several dozen trips orbiting the sun.
Thank you so much – I appreciate this. One other thing I’ve noticed are that the tulips in many planters are already on their way out, and May doesn’t even start until tomorrow!
I have fond memories of “flying” a silver manual SC from Detroit to LA and back in summer ’89. The car was an early one leased to my friend, who was a designer at Ford. It got a lot of attention, as most had never seen a Super Coupe at that time. We ran well over 100mph where possible with a radar detector and good observation saving us a couple of times (unthinkable today!). The ‘Bird was a great GT – comfortable, great handling and quick for the times, although the muscular V6 was not very refined.
What a great road trip! We saw so much of this wonderful country – from Mid west plains to Monument Valley (see pic) to LA, returning via the Bonneville Salt Flats. No one could figure out the “snow” plastered all over the car when we stopped after that.
Great memories!
This sounds like such an amazing experience to have had. I can imagine the stares your friend’s leased SC got. I still remember one of the first times I saw one of these MN-12s on the road, on the expressway while on the way to the Briarwood Mall in Ann Arbor. It’s an image I still remember all these years later. These were gorgeous when new.
Hi Joseph, love your articles. I do want to mention one item – I believe Lorain was the assembly plant for Thunderbirds from 1980 to 1997 according to Wikipedia at least.
Orion Twp is the site of a current GM plant (correct on the pronunciation though!) that opened in 1983.
JB, thank you both for your kind words and important correction. When I complete a first draft of any essay, I usually take that time to go back over and proofread the next essay I have coming up. My guess is that I had Michigan on the brain based on some other car I was thinking about. I fixed the text – thanks again!
These MN-12 Thunderbirds and Cougars are getting very thin on the ground. I can’t recall the last time I saw one. I guess their impractical coupe body style limits their value on the beater market, unlike their contemporaries like the Lumina and Taurus, both of which are still relatively common.
Tom, it’s funny you should mention the MN-12 Cougar, because I stopped and photographed one just this past weekend, remarking to myself exactly what you said – how thin on the ground they have become. You make a great point about the relative prevalence or popularity of four-doors on the secondhand market, just because they’re more practical for their primary purpose: people-hauling.
I very much enjoyed this article and thought the ‘bird’ references both creative and entertaining. Climate change…I am convinced it is affecting wildlife and that makes me sad. I lived within sight of downtown Ottawa Ontario, 2003-22, lived in a high-rise bordered on 3-sides by government experimental farms. Come fall the plants would be plowed under and 1000s of geese would converge to munch and fatten up before their trip south. My last two years in Ottawa, milder winters and much fewer geese. I retired and moved to Richmond VA, 2022. I lived in Richmond for a few years, first in the mid-70s, again in the early 90s, now last two winters. Not scientific, but winters here are much milder now then 1970s.
I am a T-Bird fan and I think the gen-10 body style was was nicely done. But as some others noted the interiors were lacking in unique style & quality. I grew up with T-Birds, new family bought 1960, 1963, 1966. I occasionally show my current 1966 convertible at all Ford events and seldom see a gen-10 T-Bird. Where did they all go?
I’d also like to know where all of the 9th Generation (Fox-Aero) Birds went. These two were my generations, having had an ’83, two ’88(s) – a V8 LX and a Turbo Coupe, as well as a ’94 and my final ‘Bird, a ’97.
These cars were not poorly constructed, and for the most part had reliable engines, so you’d think more of them would have been preserved.
When I went to Carlisle’s Ford event a few years back, there were number of the later Foxes, but whether V8 or actual TC(s), the all had the Turbo Coupe beak if they were ’87(s) or ’88(s). Very few had the 3.8L, which was probably by choice. Over my T-Bird years, I had every drive train (except the SC’s) and can attest that the 5.0LX was the most reliable, followed by the ’94 4.6L. The Essex motors were just ok, and TC’s 2.3L Turbo had its issues, although the 5 speed manual was pretty decent.
Alfred, thank you so much. Your mention of the interior (which others have also mentioned in the comments) really has me curious to see what they’re really like.
We have a lot of geese here in my neighborhood on Chicago’s north side.
Great post as always Joe and I can relate having seen changes in my own back yard regarding the birds… The avian kind, not the automotive kind, although that’s different too. Why do I have a Mustang? Because they don’t make the T-Bird anymore.
I used to be an automotive climate change denier. I did not believe that the personal coupe (or even cars!) would ever go away. I mean, why would anyone in their right mind sacrifice style for something as mundane as practicality? It is just so wrong. For the love of God, just wiggle yourself back there to strap the kiddos in the seat! It’s good exercise, right?
Tongue and cheek humor aside, my wife, the more practical one of us, wanted a CUV. So finally, in my 60(s), I purchased the first car ever titled to my name with more than two doors. And it wasn’t even a sedan… well, maybe a tall sedan. But damn it, I wasn’t going to lose the style battle for something as mundane as practicality. No sir. I bought the CUV, but it’s a Soul Red Mazda CX-5. It’s the most stylish in its class, IMHO.
And at the risk of blowing my PLC & Coupe cred… it really is easier to get into and out of than either of my two coupes. Ssshhhh… Don’t tell anyone. 😉
Thank you, RS Rick! About the CUV, I’ll just say this – my last few rentals have been CUVs (nothing nearly as nice as a Mazda CX-5), and there is something to be said for their ride height, airy interiors, and ability to carry passengers if needed. With that said, I’m sure I’ll always be a Coupe Man in my heart of hearts.
I bought a used ‘94 Tbird with the 3.8 V-6 right out of college. I lusted for a Supercoupe but they were far out of my price range. I would’ve happily settled for a V-8 but they were nowhere near as common as the sixes. It was a sharp looking car with pleasing driving dynamics, but ultimately what killed mine was head gasket failure…a well-documented issue with 3.8’s.
Such a car as you describe sounds like a sweet post-college ride. The high-spec cars are referred to as “halo-cars” for a reason, and the trickle-down glow by association is real. It’s part of the reason I was more than happy with my 2.3L-equipped ’88 Mustang!
I bought a 97 Cougar with the 4.6 from a elderly family member. 50k miles at purchase in 2007. The proverbial Aunt Millie special.
The price was right (2 grand) and the car was in great condition. I had to make some repairs including replacing the intake manifold, but I kept it up and it never left me stranded on my long commute. The paint (white opalescent tricoat, beautiful color) and interior trim held up too. It was quiet on the road (an undervalued trait IMHO) and things fell to hand in the cabin.
But I never liked the car. The best part was the smooth engine. Otherwise, the gearing was terrible, the ride was hard, and it felt so bulky around town. Things were better on the highway but none of the control efforts really matched. The right ingredients were there but it lacked that last 20% of tuning that sets the best apart.
And it really needed the optional limited-slip differential. Even in our mild climate, the rear end would go dancing on damp pavement, or plain get stuck on driveways and curbs. No standard ABS either?
It was the first car I bought, and 6 years and 60k miles in, I was tired of it. I sold it to my mechanic and haven’t looked back.
Thanks for this. That opalescent white was a stunning paint color then – I think I’ve seen something similar on current vehicles. It was much more enduring than the also-cool “color-changing” paint Ford used on some Mustangs and Probes of the ’90s.
A shame about the details on your Cougar being a letdown. Even if it wasn’t your favorite car, I think $2K (probably twice that in 2024) was a great price for your relative’s car.
My ’94 was Peal Opalescent and it really was gorgeous, especially at that photographer’s favorite time, the golden hour.
That Mustang color you are referring to changed from Green to Brown to Purple depending on your angle, and was another great “golden hour” color.
I think the concept is making a comeback Joseph, as that white shows up in a few places, and many wraps (I’m looking at you Tesla owners) have that opalescent effect.
I for one am a fan!
I really wanted to like this generation T-Bird. It has such a good chassis, IRS for the love of. The Mustang didn’t get IRS until 2015, my math may be off but 28 years!
The styling was bland and the front end is horrible.
The 4.6 V8 while very reliable was very disappointing. Ford didn’t fix that until the 2011 Mustang.
The Essex V6, boat anchor, they sink faster when the head gaskets are blown.
Total waste of a decent chassis.
In fact the only good use of the MN-12 chassis was its use on the prototype Mustangs, (I think there are two), that became the S197 Mustang.
As a life long Ford fan I was so disappointed in the MN-12 Birds.