Count me as one who likes the styling of the newest Thunderbird. I’m okay but not in love with the first generation, not a fan of the second, absolutely adore the third and fourth, then they pretty much lost me until I warmed up a bit to the ninth and generally liked the tenth. Whew, that’s a lot. Then when they realized they ran out of ideas and it had been a while without one and came up with the eleventh, the retro one for 2002, I was back on board. And until this summer every one I’d seen had been in very good shape, generally a weekend car, and probably polished and pampered way more than the average car. Then this July I came across this one.
Yes, it needs a bit of work. And yes, those are not one, but two ladders on top of it. Never mind those. What we have here is not just a Thunderbird, but a 50th Anniversary one from the 2005 model year, which was also the last year of production. I still don’t understand how it’s the 50th since if 1955 was the first year, that would make 2005 the 51st year, not the 50th, but that’s marketing math for you I suppose.
Obviously there was some sort of frontal impact, perhaps an animal strike, perhaps a fender bender in traffic, but enough to damage most of the front end sheetmetal and likely some substructure parts. The platform itself, though no body parts obviously, was shared with the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-Type, and it was built at Ford’s Wixom plant.
If you’ve ever spent time in the Lincoln LS, then this instrument panel is familiar. Along with the steering wheel and some smaller trim pieces, it is shared which obviously helps to bring down the production costs of a fairly low volume model. I wouldn’t call this exactly opulent, but it is cleanly designed and relatively attractive, if perhaps lacking a little in the pizzazz aspect; it is a Thunderbird after all, and a little over-the-topness was part and parcel of that in the earlier days.
Behind this badge sits the engine which started out as a Jaguar designed 3.9l DOHC V8 known as the AJ-30, but as of 2003 was replaced by another Jaguar unit, the AJ-35, a modified unit of the AJ-30 now producing 280hp and 286lb-ft of torque backed by a 5-speed automatic transmission.
I find the taillight design to be excellent, not so much the porthole windows in the removable hardtop, but the overall proportions work for me, especially when viewed from this angle, and even better with the top down. The Thunderbird has gone through so many different sizes, styles, and personas over the decades that almost anything goes, there really is no “one” theme. But at day’s end it remains instantly recognizable as a Thunderbird.
The new front bumper is straddling the back, the hood is on the roof, the replacement fender’s already attached and the boxes probably hold a bunch of other necessary stuff. It doesn’t look like it needs all that much work to get back on the road, but probably needs more time than whoever’s car this is has at present. And thus, it sits here in the open behind a gas station a stone’s throw from I-80.
I believe this color is Platinum Silver (very much a pearl white) and while pretty, it isn’t my favorite color on this, I think a dark gray of all colors would look great here, or perhaps a blue, something to set off the very minimal brightwork. However in 2005 there were only five colors available – this one, a bluish-silver metallic, then bronze, red, and black. Curiously though there were SIX interior colors or color combinations available and the hardtop could in some cases be a contrasting color, i.e. not every color choice forced a matching hardtop color, for example a red car could have a red, black, or white top even though you could not have a white car. Only blue and bronze forced the same color top.
The turquoise inlay in the logo on the rear decklid is a great historical touch and looks perfect.
I certainly hope this one gets back on the road, I haven’t been by in a while to check if it’s still there. If it were mine, the hardtop would be in the garage rafters somewhere and this would be a wonderful ride to take across the interstate a long way away and then once arrived somewhere, perhaps a coast, drop the top and tootle around aimlessly just taking in the scenery. Of course the weather would be perfect. As would the companionship.
As it turned out, the new T-Bird had a great first year of just over 19,000 sales but still under Ford’s projected 25,000, then sales plummeted before they pulled the plug after the fourth year. The last one rolled off the line on July 1, 2005, over fourteen years ago. In all likelihood the pricing was a big factor starting at around $40,000 back in ’02 which was probably about $10,000 more than it should have been to be a bigger success. Not everybody was or is a fan, but I for one am glad Ford gave it another chance and did so with the style and grace it deserved.
Related Reading:
Count me as a fan of this T-Bird, too. It captured the spirit of the original 1955 in a modern package. But between it’s being a two-seater and expensive the demand just wasn’t there and those who wanted one got theirs early.
The front-end damage would be a bonus for me since it would afford the opportunity to correct what was to me one of the worst parts of the car’s design.
I’d end up giving it a more upright treatment closer to the ’55 since I wouldn’t be a major manufacturer having to deal with CAFE and other regulatory issues. I’d also move the tail lights back so that they were flush with the rear and weld in a filler panel so that the rear would still evoke the understated rear of the ’55 (as opposed to the more finned ’57).
I agree about both ends. The front reminds me a lot more of a first gen Falcon than a T-bird.
This makes my heart sink a little, given that this was such a collectible car, even if it wasn’t all that rare. I’ve always liked these final T-Birds, even if they had many shortcomings, like a lot of cheap parts-bin interior components and unusual omissions like fully power-adjustable seats.
The good thing is there are still a lot of well-preserved examples left, as I have a hunch the majority were purchased by older individuals who were around when the original debuted and purchased as Sunday drivers destined to spend most of their lives in garages.
Your last paragraph is pretty much what I was going to say: I’m surprised to see one of these in this condition, because I thought all of them were lovingly stashed in garages, in retirement communities across the United States.
At least that’s how it appears to be where I live…
Given the collision damage, this may be an insurance total, due to depreciation, for which the owner bought back the salvage and tried to fix it up as a DIY project, and gave up partway through.
I also like the proportions of this T-bird — for some reason, big 2-seaters have always appealed to me, even though I know it’s a completely irrational concept.
But, overall for me, these T-birds were too awash in ’50s nostalgia. I can live with the round tail lights (and actually kind of like them), however the rest of the car, from the porthole windows to the front end that looks like a melted version of the original, seems like a styling concept that never should have seen the light of day.
Some cars I’ve warmed up to over the years, but I still haven’t reached that point with the 11th generation Thunderbird.
Oh, and somehow I never noticed the turquoise inlay in the logo — that’s kind of a nice touch.
In regard to this particular Thunderbird, I shall remain optimistic it sees wide open country again.
When these came out I was decidedly ho-hum about them but their appeal has grown on me considerably. I wouldn’t rule out getting a nice example at some point.
Perhaps the appeal is also age related. A woman I work with told me she and her husband have been keeping an eye out for a clean, reasonably priced example of this generation Thunderbird as they now have an empty nest. Talk about an ideal vehicle for a middle-aged couple out to have a little fun…
Several years ago, when my wife and I decided that retirement meant it was time for another convertible, this was one of the cars I researched. I must have looked at 15-20 of the retro birds online and they seemed to fall into one of two categories; either they were a weekend toy with low mileage and a high price, or they had been driven extensively and had 98% of their lifespan used up and would be a money pit to keep on the road. I never did drive one or I might have tried harder to find one I liked. In the end, after driving several “collectible” convertibles we ended up buying a year old Mustang from a local Ford dealer. Although there are occasions when I wish I had gotten one with the V8, the vast majority of the time I am happy with the V6.
I was disappointed in these. The basic proportions (and basic concept) are good, but I felt that the details were not executed as nicely as they could have been. The big round taillights are great, but what about the little fender blades that topped them on the original 55 model – something that would have made the rear really work. Oh well.
My other disappointment was the powertrain. The oddball/low volume engine takes this car out of “normal Ford” and into a different category. “Normal Ford” is simple and awash in very durable parts and mods. This Jaguar-designed engine is more of a cul de sac, one in which people are moving out of rapidly. A 4.6 and other Mustang-derived bits would have made these so much more appealing as old weekend cruisers.
And I am with you – this may be the first of these I have seen that is not in very good or better condition.
I agree that the power train is not that desireable and is one of the main reasons there isn’t one in my driveway. Give me a 4.6 and I probably would have had one long ago.
There would probably be some Jaguar guys out there who would be only too happy to take the AJ unit off your hands.
This car was launched at a time when values of the original Thunderbird had gone through the roof. The concept car that previewed these impressed me – I particularly liked the fog/driving lights positioned where the dagmar bumpers were in the original car. Ford took their time getting it into production though; and the concept car wound up making the rounds at auto shows for the next three years. I recall a wag on a message board at the time suggesting it was overdue for a facelift by then – quite funny since it hadn’t even reached production yet. The newness/oldness of the styling had already started to wear off by then.
It turned out to portend the actual production run. For several decades, each new Thunderbird was met by an undercurrent of dissent from some diehards that only the only “real” T-birds were the early 2-seat models. Most of those seemed to have bought the new one the first year it was available, a pattern that also applied to the revived Fiat 500 and VW Beetle. Ultimately, the retro-Bird succumbed to the same forces and pitfalls that doomed the original car in the 1950s. Then as now, a car that can only hold two people and not much luggage, yet is relatively expensive and as big as many sedans. Such cars will never be mass sellers – no back seat is too much of a liability. This applies to whatever form factor it may take – Miata, Smart, CRX, Fiero, MR2, etc. A two-seater will always be a tough sell, and most of them that aren’t pricey sports cars bought as second cars will fail in the marketplace.
Haha, wild!
Bummer the window’s down letting in all the dust, dirt and moisture. I hope this gets repaired and put back on the road, though I am not a huge fan of these.
I haven’t checked values on these lately but I wonder what a good one goes for. Maybe it doesn’t pencil to rebuild this one? Even though it appears most parts are there…
I have history with these – mostly very good.
The 2002 model year is the least desirable; the engine for that year has less horsepower. Ford recalibrated it or something for 2003-2005 for more guts. But the 2002s were the most produced and most plentiful now.
The seat bottom may be too short to satisfy some drivers; it irks me a little but I can live with it.
The trunk is tiny and quite shallow. A weekend worth of stuff is OK; forget a week long trip.
This car satisfies like a modern car – quiet, comfortable, safe, adequate controls and audio. But it does not have any irritating current safety features. No lane warning/correction; radar cruise control; backup or lane beepers; nav; connectivity; huge center display screen. It is a modern car without distractions that bother some (me).
They can be found used with low miles and in very nice condition. I can recommend from experience.
For me, the best color is the coral that matched Halle Berry’s swimsuit in the James Bond movie (Die Another Day, 2002) where she drives one. It was one of the better product placements in a movie, better than the Z3, Z8, or 750IL BMWs plugged in other Bond films.
Why do I feel like they tried to get pin-up appeal so hard that the whole scene ended up looking corny?
I have to disagree, I found the Ford PAG product placement even more jarring in this movie as the AMC product placement in The Man With The Golden Gun. Thunderbird, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Land Rover, all present and accounted for. Was it canon that the goon party in the ice mansion was sponsored by Ford?
No more than the BMW product placement I mentioned. A Z3 – in Cuba, before the slight thaw in relations – being driven away from the airstrip by Felix Unger? Or the remote control drive from the back seat of the 750IL – which at least was taking place in Germany. Or the Z8 sawed in half by the chopper-borrne saw?
With the PAG tie in, at least the American was in an American car, with Bond and the baddie both driving English cars. I don’t remember any Volvos, so no gratuitous use of them.
And the AMC tie up was hilarious. Part of it was simple pandering to get product placement, but the spiral jump was always performed in an AMC product. A Javelin was used in the Astrodome, and a Matador in the movie. What ended up being hilarious was the Thai market being shown as a huge market for AMC, when in reality it was practically nonexistent over there. Add in a yokel Louisiana Sheriff – on vacation in Thailand! – shopping an AMC dealership in Bangkok! Suspension of disbelief was pulled to the limit.
The difference was the BMWs were all Bond’s cars, just like the Aston Martins and Lotus. Of which there are plenty of settings they don’t fit either, Q branch just always inexplicably sent them wherever he went. With 3/4 of the cast behind the wheel of Ford PAG products it’s hard to take it seriously.
I do agree that the man with a golden gun’s AMC tie in is hilarious, but it’s such a ridiculous movie it’s hard not to say “why not” and dig into my popcorn. It’s actually my favorite 007 movie if I’m being honest. Die Another Day was ridiculous but not near as fun as the AMC placement, it was making way too much attempt to be stylish, like MrAnnoyingDude said to make pinup worthy shots. The flying Matador and corkscrew jumping Hornet were silly Roder Moore era punchlines, not pinups.
To be fair, the ’05 Thunderbird was not that expensive when compared with competitors.
SC430? CLK500? Over 60k.
XK8? 645Ci? Mid-70s.
SL500? Over 90k.
Its problem was a relative lack of desirability in a small segment of status symbols, not bad value.
Great points. I’ll also add that while I love pretty much every aspect of this Thunderbird, the problem was that the sales were pretty much limited to nostagia……people that grew up either with the original T-Bird as a halo car, or spent a good portion of their youth always wanting one in the 60’s or 70’s as a classic even back then.
The original T-Bird was positioned as a niche, aspirational car, and it wasn’t until ’58 and four seats that it actually exploded, sales-wise, so it’s not totally surprising to see the underwhelming sales for the retro Bird. Ford had got the formula right in re-capturing the original’s spirit–2 seats, aspirational type of car; decent performance even if it wasn’t a race car (minus the original supercharged versions). The problem was that the people that aspired to this vehicle had pretty much aged themselves out of really wanting to grow with the car and the brand. It’s kind of like selling a greatest hits release by Elvis–the diehards will buy it out of nostalgia to complete their collection, but newer audiences generally won’t, so you’re pretty much catering to the already converted.
I was always in two minds about this T-Bird, but generally certain colors suited it better like black, red or yellow (I saw a yellow one in Puerto Rico in 2004) and it was certainly different from everything on the market at that time. Surprised to see such a new car in this condition, but stuff happens…
They always appealed, but were beyond my reach when new. Just retired now, I’m likely right in the “typical 2nd owner” demographic. Maybe I shouldn’t have looked at recent eBay selling prices, ’cause they seem pretty reasonable for a modern-enough, service-anywhere car with some style:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/Cars-Trucks/6001/i.html?_from=R40&UF_single_selection=Make%3AFord%2CModel%3AThunderbird&UF_context=finderType%3AVEHICLE_FINDER&_sacat=6001&_stpos=53029&_fspt=1&Model%2520Year=2002%7C2003%7C2004%7C2005&_nkw=Ford+Thunderbird&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1
Oh, yeah, and this is the first one I’ve seen in anything but proud-owner condition.
Damn it Jim, now I’m off to craigslist, I did seriously consider a late model Thunderbird as a toy last summer.
And of course now I find, what to me is, the best color combination.
https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/ctd/d/lakewood-2002-ford-thunderbird-deluxe/7000449946.html
No it is not going to happen because I purchased a different toy less than 5 months ago and my wife would kill me if I brought another one one w/o getting rid of something else first.
Wonder what’s in the black toolbox on the passenger seat?
Tools? 🙂 It’s Laramie, nobody locks anything.
It’s not a toolbox; it’s the box for the urn holding the ashes of the former owner.
I was never really sure how I felt about these at the time. I was kinda torn, as all of my Thunderbirds were 4 passenger models and I liked them all. (An ’83, 2 ea ’88(s), a ’94, and a ’97.)
My last T-Bird, to quote someone above, was “The last real T-Bird”, being a ’97 MN12.
I liked these two-seaters. Then I didn’t like these two-seaters. Then if I saw one in the right color combo, I liked them again. But $40K… yeah, it was not happening.
But then it passed all too quickly, and I ended up with a much more affordable retro Mustang instead.
Now that I’m older, and it’s just the wife and I, if I ever get tired of my Mustang, a low mileage example of one of these would be kinda nice. My ’94 MN12 was a Pearl Opalescent example that I liked very much. This color looks a little different. I think I’d go with a darker example if I were to get one of these Last T-Birds*.
* To that end, if Ford still owns the rights to that name (and they should), I’d love to see them do it again… 2 seater, 4 passenger, or 2+2 coupe like my car. I REALLY miss the PLC(s). Sadly, it’ll likely never happen. :o(
I’m steeling myself for a “Thunderbird Cross”.
You’re right, there were a few different pearl whites used, your 94 Tbird like my Cougar looks more white than cream in most lights. I think Lincoln Mark VIIIs used this more yellowish shade
Please don’t call the devil Matt, on that “Thunderbird Cross” idea… shudder to think…
As to the pearl color of our MN12(s), maybe it’s my eyes, memory, or differences in photos and such, but I thought our cars had a more yellow or cream tinge to them.
What’s interesting is the fact these colors went away, and then came back again in the last few years. I guess it’s true that what goes around, comes around. 😉
My boss has a 2018 Accord, and at first glance, I thought it was just white. Turns out it’s pearl opalescent as well, albeit way more white than our cars or this T-Bird. And he agrees with us regarding how good the car looks during a colorful sunset.
And I really liked the Mark VIII in that pearl color, whichever variant it sported.
What killed this car for me was that my 82 year old grandmother wanted one. That, and the New Beetle were her favorites. So now, every time I see one, I imagine someone 82 years old in the slow lane, reliving their youth.
Damn, I had my eye on a Fiat 500 (cheap & fun) as a second car.
Now the T’bird (drop top & fun) comes on to my radar scope.
Decisions, decisions, decisions….
Get your T-bird now as prices are now back on the upswing. The 500 is still on the down swing and is unlikely to see an upside anytime soon.
Not only were these overpriced when they first came out, $10,000 “additional dealer markups” were common, making it not much of a bargain. A friend bought a pristine 2003 a few years ago as a weekend toy. Very cramped cabin and practically no trunk. Installing/removing the hardtop was an arduous, two man affair. He tired of it after a year and sold it, but for a few grand less than he paid for it.
These weren’t exactly terrific cars in any area (they got quite the drubbing from magazine reviews) but if I had to pick the one thing that really killed them, I’d have to say it was price. There’s absolutely nothing there worth not only the huge ADM that Ford dealers were slapping on them, but even the MSRP was way too high.
For at least several thousand less, Ford might have had something of a success, but both corporate and dealer greed just killed these. Ironically, after production ended, dealerships couldn’t give them away even with thousands knocked off the price.
These look more like an overgrown retro MGB than a Thunderbird. I don’t completely hate it on that basis, but between that and the price, and the modest performance, and unchanged Lincoln LS dash I just don’t harbor the nastalgia to accept them as a properly executed retro revival like the Ford GT or 05 Mustang. I’ll stick with the MN12 if I want a “modern” Tbird.
My father-in-law had one of these, a Torch Red. ’03, so I’m fairly familiar with them. After he died a few years ago my then 27 year old son ended up with the car, which had about 82K miles on it, and which he kept for about a year until he decided the expense of having two cars wasn’t tenable. He ended up selling the T-bird — actually, I sold it for him — this summer via a local consignment dealer for probably 1/4 of what it cost new.
These aren’t bad cars to drive. The ’03 has about 30 more horses than the ’02 model and acceleration is quite brisk. It’s no muscle car, mind you, but it has more than adequate get up ‘n go while making a nice, throaty V8 growl under hard acceleration.
Handling-wise, it is pretty maneuverable. It’s no Miata or Boxster, mind you, but it handles reasonably well for what it is: a Boulevard cruiser. The hardtop seems to impart a fair amount of added chassis stiffness, but with it off there is a fair amount of cowl shake over rough pavement.
Oh, and by the way, there’s no need to hang the hard top in the rafters once it’s off. These cars came with a handy folding/rolling metal rack and special cover for storing the top. Not that all “new” T-birds out there still have them…my father in law’s did.
One item his T-bird no longer had, and which somewhat negatively affected its sale value, was the original tonneau cover for the folding top. Apparently these things went missing often enough that they are considered rare to find on a ’02-’05 T-bird these days, and they can cost upwards of a few thousand dollars for an original replacement – if you can find one.
On the road these cars are pretty comfortable cruisers, as you’d expect them to be. I drove my father-in-law’s to deliver it to my son who lived 7 hours away, and on combined two-lane highway and interstate driving it was comfortable and quiet (the hard top was in place) and even got reasonably good fuel economy, around 23-24 MPG if my memory is correct.
Styling is subjective, but I think overall it’s a good, if not great design, and one of the better, more cohesive retro-themed designs from that “retro” design era. The interior I agree isn’t that great, but the exterior I think has aged pretty well, and they did offer some great colors during the car’s run. It captures the important classic T-bird roadster design cues quite well with just enough flash to avoid being too spare. Yeah the porthole top is kind of trite, but hey, it’s a two seat T-bird, after all.
Yes they were overpriced.
I bought this beauty in 2018. With 32000 miles. For a fraction of its cost brand new
I wasn’t too keen on them when they came out but have grown on me. Still, I’m keeping an eye out for a good deal on a ’57…
I was never a fan of these cars. The whole retro theme in automotive designs back then was unoriginal and became very boring all too quickly. Thankfully the retro craze has mostly fizzled out. The 89-97 T-Birds were the last true T-Bird series. And I have to say they were better cars in many ways compared to the retro birds that emerged a decade later.
Exactly! Besides the styling, whose execution was polarizing even at the height of retro embrace, what did these birds actually offer over a 1997 V8 LX that cost a fraction of these only a few short years earlier? Performance is pretty much the same, styling is solidly sportier in the MN12 IMO, the practicality of the 02-05 is abysmal, and the handling isn’t even an improvement – the MN12 wasn’t even far removed from the DEW98 platform in terms of design, so where was all the extra cost going towards?
They offer a droptop which makes all the difference to a lot of people.
I couldn’t stay away from cars.com…cheapest ones (“repairable”) all have front end damage like our Laramie ‘Bird, and there’s a flood-damage victim or two (“repairable,” it says as well).
On the other end, some have only a few hundred miles, and so have a $35-45K “ask.”
Lots of middle ground, with a sweet spot seemingly around $10K-12K, with not too many miles, and seemingly every color ever offered—both dealers and private sales.
Not that black’s my favorite color, but this one has a pretty good price/mileage intersection:
I remember these. Austin (my best friend) had one, a 2004. To call it problematic is speaking lightly.
Allegedly, the reason Ford did not fit the contemporary 4.6-liter Mod V8 on these is that it did not clear the suspension components when installed from below, and as such would have made assembly unnecessarily complicated. That said, Ford did hack up the DEW98 platform this car used to create the D2C platform for the retro 2005-2014 Mustang, and that one *did* have the Mod engine.
I drove mine (’04 PCR) from Cheyenne to Albuquerque this morning; carrying on to Scottsdale tomorrow.
You critics who have not driven/owned one don’t know what you are missing. It was a pleasure cruising down I-25 at about 78 mph (but for the mess that is metro Denver). Filled up with 91 octane premium at $2.699 on the north side of ABQ at noon; what a deal! The patrons there noticed the PCR too.
Mine goes well, has simple controls, looks cool. It just does not carry much.
This sounds EXACTLY what it should (and clearly does) excel at. Nice to hear you are taking yours on a long-ish trip. I had to look up PCR (Pacific Coast Roadster, a 2004-only special edition), it sounds lovely. Enjoy your trip, you picked a very good weather day to start.
What kind of mpg’s are you getting?
Constellation, you took the words right out of my mouth. “Ask the man who owns one,” right? My 2003 has been a joy to drive, handles and performs well, more acceleration than you could ever want, a really cool burble sound from the exhaust, simple controls (as you note), no expensive maintenance issues (well, it still only has 17,000 miles on the odo), gets attention wherever I go. I have said before how much I love this car, and I joke with friends that this is likely my last car, even though I have had it from new. I’m still way south of 82, as someone says above, but it is still a thrill to drive, and I treasure that.
Jim: The fuel MPG – I keep a log at every fill up but I have not calculated the MPG on this trip yet. Thankfully there is no MPG warning/indicator/advisory that I can display by monkeying with some car computer. I will advise you but here is what I do know about the mileage. The longest segment I drove on the two day trip was 339 miles between the fuel stops on the north side of Pueblo and the north side of ABQ. That’s as far as I (and especially my wife) want to go. The car could have gone farther; maybe there was 1/4 tank left. But we couldn’t have gone farther. I guess the MPG is probably 28 or 30 or so. I am beyond caring about MPG; I have a Corolla for any trip on which I need to save money on fuel.
Jim – my PCR is # 12 of 999 (or 1,000 – the number seems to be disputed). It was sold new at Spradley in Cheyenne but not to me. I got it eight years later after the first owner paid for the depreciation.
Don: The car has all the guts I need. Today on AZ 277 (a boring, flat, two lane straight in the north of the Arizona White Mountains area ) the Thunderbird just jumped out and gobbled up the left lane when I really had to push it during a poorly judged passing maneuver. I should have waited a bit but I committed to go and the car did what it should. Good car, plenty of acceleration at speed. ABQ – SDL in six hours with one McDonalds stop, one fuel stop (Holbrook) and one “relief” stop. Not bad. I’m keeping this car.
Nice 2005 Ford Thunderbird for sale. Reasonably low miles. Some assembly required.