It has been said life isn’t about the destination so much as it is the journey. The implication is gaining and learning from one’s various experiences are the true purpose of life.
That philosophy is hard to argue with.
One of the experiences every automotive minded person needs to gain for themselves is the joys of a Thunderbird; it should almost be mandatory. Thunderbird is one of the few models were the simple name carries with it an undeniable aura, one which almost seems to transcend time. When one is exposed to the ample charms of the most buxom Thunderbird ever built, the experience is exponentially greater.
Mine was identical; however, the only pictures I have show it buried in snow
Yes, I do have experience with a Thunderbird of this generation, a 1975 model to be specific, a bronze colored beauty I owned for nearly seven years. The experience was….how shall I say it?….incomparable and unparalleled. It made me a better person. It raised my IQ. It made my eyes sparkle and my voice deeper. The experiences offered by all other cars, in their own particular way, pale in comparison to the experience one gains from these Thunderbirds.
There were Flair Birds, there were Square Birds, and there were Bullet Birds. What might we call this one? While it’s tough to create such a concise, catchy name to semi-brand these, let’s call them the Eagle Bird. Strong and powerful, eagles, particularly bald eagles, are able to silently glide to their destination, pouncing on unsuspecting prey with absolute poetry of motion.
Such is this sixth generation of Thunderbird. Sweetening the experience was it being found new on dealer lots during the American Bicentennial in 1976, with the bald eagle being the national mascot of its homeland. Why has nobody ever put these pieces together before now?
Perhaps they have not experienced the Joy of Thunderbird.
There is no denying there is a lot of Thunderbird here to enjoy. It was long (226 inches), it was low, and it was wide (80 inches). Yet these ample dimensions all coalesced into something to behold.
Have you ever witnessed a person who, for whatever reason, seems incapable of moving swiftly or gracefully? We’ve likely all seen them. But there are those among that subset of the population who are able to dispel any misperceptions about their ambulatory ability, those who can move both swiftly and gracefully when so provoked.
Our Thunderbird falls into this category. At first blush it would seem it is a wallowing mess, a quagmire of driving dynamics, the slosh-filled anthesis to the enthusiast minded driver. Perhaps it is in some situations but, like the person who appears incapable of fluidity of motion, this Thunderbird can pick up its figurative dress tails and really hustle when called upon. It’s truly an amazing event, an experience that is like having a child – it is hard to explain to the uninitiated.
Chalk part of the hustling up to the power plant. Every Thunderbird from 1974 to 1976 was motivated by the incomparable Ford 460 (7.5 liters if you prefer) V8. If ever a carbureted gasoline engine mimicked the torque output of a US Naval destroyer combined with the seamless power delivery of a jet engine, this would be it. This magnificent engine, even in 1976 era tuning, flattens the steepest hills and swallows the open highway. This is a large part of why all other cars pale in comparison.
Let’s just say these traits are what produces the legend of this special breed of bird. Not just any car can be a Thunderbird.
Our particular Thunderbird also happens to contain a subset of 1970s Thunderbird genetics. It is not just a mere Thunderbird; this particular Thunderbird has the formidable Creme & Gold luxury group.
If you find yourself scoffing at this trim, worse sounding ones could easily be experienced; there was also the Lipstick luxury group available for 1976. I would rather experience the Creme & Gold; lipstick just ain’t my thing.
The Creme & Gold luxury group was primarily two-toned paint and aluminum wheels with gold accents throughout. While it was nothing extraordinarily unique, it certainly provided a more tailored experience than any regular Thunderbird.
Walking around this Thunderbird and basking in its allure prompted a deluge of prior life experiences flashing through my mind. No doubt part of the reason was due to finding it on my birthday, an event I have experienced plenty of times.
But, as Thunderbirds are wont to do, it prompted a lot of introspection. Thunderbirds simply have that ability.
Was it really that long ago I was looking over the hood of my Thunderbird, a hood which was entirely visible to the driver, with this ornament triumphantly leading me to my destination? While that answer is measured in relativity, let’s simply say this…the view this generation Thunderbird provided from the driver’s seat inspired confidence.
Of the hundreds of light duty vehicles I have driven, I have experienced exactly one which provided such solid assurance. For those who appreciate decisiveness, this Thunderbird provides it in abundance. There is nothing ambiguous or uncertain about it.
While having mental flashbacks to my Thunderbird, I realized how fortunate I was to get several nice tastes of its finest trait – providing its occupants the experience of traveling vast distances in comfort and near utter silence.
My longest one way trip in my Thunderbird was my last, at 402 miles one-way from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to St. Joseph, Missouri. Having experienced the length of that trip many times, there is no doubt this Thunderbird was the most comfortable car I’ve used for that journey.
Ford itself recognized the Thunderbird’s talent in providing relaxed and untiring travel. Scanning the brochure for the 1976 Thunderbird shows various scenes of the great American west, with lots of open space waiting to be explored. A Thunderbird such as what is shown in these brochures would be a phenomenal way to experience not only the west but the east, south, and north as well.
Let’s face it – this Thunderbird has a great and unique profile, with vehicular profiles having become rather more homogenized over the last forty-five years. Can’t you almost see a 1976 Thunderbird parked in front of an antebellum home in the South? Or near some colonial era buildings in New England?
The United States has over 8.7 million lane miles of roadway. If one were to explore the experiences provided by the United States in 1976, a Thunderbird would have made for a fabulous partner in this journey.
Even better, in relation to the times, fuel economy was not as horrible as the inexperienced might think. Speaking from personal experience, the worst fuel mileage I ever obtained with my sister 1975 was with short trips around town, which yielded a hair over 11 miles per gallon. Highway driving was a smidgeon over 15 miles per gallon.
Perhaps by current mental calibration such fuel economy is not great, but it was not atypical for its time.
When looking for a trusty steed to experience the vast expanses of the world, one needs to be choosy. As much as I was thrilled to have found our featured Thunderbird in this setting, it did create an uncharacteristic sense of hesitation.
The years on this Thunderbird have been kind but not as unforgiving as experienced by some of its sisters. While I have little doubt about the mechanical goodness remaining, the exterior presentation has begun to slowly progress beyond the beauty marks of age. The gold is tarnished and the creme isn’t as fresh. Our Bird’s appearance creates the question of what may (or may not) be lurking in the various nooks and crannies of its undercarriage.
But in the end, one thing still holds true. It is a Thunderbird. Few cars are so lucky as to be bestowed with this special distinction and even fewer are able to experience vibrancy for as long as our featured Thunderbird. Your wings are far from being clipped, oh mighty Eagle Bird, and may you continue to soar for years to come.
Found September 2020
Sedalia, Missouri
I’ve heard this generation called Big Birds or sometimes Bulk Birds.
I wonder if Ford could sell even 5,000 of these a year today. How much demand is there for a car that’s this long, this low, has only two doors, reportedly has little rear seat or trunk space, has bench seats, and gets about 13mpg? Still, I like it because it’s so ridiculous…
Back when I had my Thunderbird, the State of Illinois allowed personalized plates for no extra charge provided it ended with a number. So I did indeed have “Big Bird 1” plates on mine.
5000? Easily. In fact, I’d go so far as to say sales would be far into six figures, and the reason can be explained by the huge sales of full-size, crew-cab pickup trucks and SUVs. The vast majority of people who buy those things really have no practical use for them; they just want the size and power, the two things a mid-seventies Thunderbird had in spades.
The pickup and SUV boom didn’t really gather steam until domestic cars were dramatically downsized (beginning in the seventies) when CAFE and emissions requirements strangled engine size and power. But pickup trucks were exempt, so guess where the buyers went? To this day, I’d be willing to bet those same buyers would love to get their hands on updated, early-seventies-sized bulgemobiles if the domestics were allowed to build them without huge government penalties.
While there can be no reasonable doubt that the government forced large car buyers into trucks, it seems unlikely that people would voluntarily return to large cars. Just look at all those mid-sized and compact CUVs pushing practical cars out of the market. There are even ‘coupe’ CUVs; for people who want the utility of an MG and the handling of a GMC. Besides, most new ‘car’ buyers are too frail to handle the doors of a Ford or GM PLC, and too infirm to stand up out of a seat lower than a sofa.
Pickup Trucks ARE the new PLC. I can’t see the disadvantage of a modern truck over a modern iteration of the Thunderbird.
I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and for this beholder the difference is beauty: modern trucks haven’t got any! Huge Lego middle fingers, that’s what I see, with apologies to LEGO and middle fingers. CAFE is a great lesson in the law of unintended consequences. I love getting 43 mpg in my Focus 1.0, but I do wish I could see the past the personal luxury skyscraper in front of me.
I used to subscribe to this theory too – that lax CAFE regs for cars vs. trucks led to big cars being dropped and SUVs and CUVs being pushed heavily. But that wouldn’t explain why CUVs have become extremely popular all over the world, including places whose government policies don’t favor trucks over cars.
Excellent point about the popularity of CUVs, la673. The flaw in rudiger’s theory is that people don’t just want vehicular size, they want practical, usable interior and cargo space. The space utilization on these beasts (and almost all PLCs, for that matter) is downright pathetic.
“I wonder if Ford could sell even 5,000 of these a year today.”
I wonder, as well. Because despite the original two-seat Thunderbird being far more fondly remembered than these barges, Ford sold less than 56,000 of the revived 2001 to 2005 versions.
But maybe if a ‘76 was featured in a nostalgic movie about an elusive blonde driving it…
Barge Bird. Battleship Bird. Lost the Plot Bird.
Brougham Bird…
Fat Birder
These seemed a lot less common than their Lincoln peers. Perhaps that gives them a certain cache? I do like the front grille treatment on these – a little less pretentious than the Lincoln’s and gives it a more sporty air.
I began my CC odyssey with the belief that these were nothing more than afterthoughts of the Mark IV, sort of like factory seconds being offered through an outlet store. But after your years of preaching, I have seen the light and have come to appreciate these for what they are – an additional flavor for those who crave the goodness of the plus-sized FoMoCo offerings of the 70s.
I think I may now prefer these Birds to the post-1972 Lincolns (sorry, but I still hold that the inaugural 1972 Mark IV is the ultimate expression of this car). This Creme and Gold luxury group is a little too much for me, however. But, I suppose if you are going to take the plunge into Big Birds, there’s no sense in trying to do so inconspicuously.
Isn’t a certain daughter of yours in need of a car? 🙂 BTW, I just looked and Gateway Classic Cars is auctioning one of these on the bay of e – a brown 72 with an indicated 39k on the odo that looks like as genuinely sweet as a person could find in one of these.
The Creme & Gold is too much for me, also. If I had to pick one of the many themed Thunderbirds, this one really wouldn’t be it. The red of the Lipstick edition is more visually pleasing but the name kills it. The Copper edition from 1975, like the one I had with an example shown above, is perhaps the definitive one of the bunch.
That ’72 sounds pretty good. I recently found (somewhere) a ’76 that was supposedly never titled with only 17 miles on it but it was a nasty pastel blue with a white top. And, a frequent CC commenter just sent me an ad for a twin to the featured car that had just under 20k on the odometer.
Somehow I always found the same generation, much shared parts Lincoln Mark a more attractive car, inside and outside.
EvvvahhhBudddyzDiffnt.
There are some elements of the Lincoln I also like better.
Being different is in the job description of quite a few people. Sure I could have trashed this car, it certainly has some traits that beg for it, but how predictable and boring would that have been?
I Agree with you, Jason Shafer!
I also suspect that there is (at least) one senior member of this site that would want me to be more predictable & boring and my automotive opinions to be not quite so strong and blunt.
🙂
I have been calling these Whale Birds for years now. My girlfriend and I rode in that cozy back seat once and more than just my IQ was raised. 🙂
There were a lot of good things that happened in the backseats of these, weren’t there? You have experience with such things and, well, I do also. Those seats really weren’t that cramped.
I can neither confirm nor deny that rumor.
😉
It always did strike me that ‘privacy’ was a consideration in the design of 1970s personal luxury coupes, what with the thick pillars, tiny opera windows and opera lights that discouraged looking into the rear seat area…
I couldn’t agree more! Especially having spent some of the past weekend driving around in our ’95 Thunderbird. Of course, I think two ’95s could fit into the cubic volume occupied by the Eagle Bird, but I guess that just makes this ’76 twice as nice!
All sentiments aside though, I could never entirely warm up to this generation of Birds, not on account of its heft, or anything like that, but because of the rear quarter-window treatment. The combination of the tiny roll-down window and the equally tiny by oddly shaped opera window just doesn’t do it for me. It sort of reminds me of the design of some modern McMansions, which are unduly large, and have undersized and randomly shaped windows placed seemingly at random across the facade.
And I do like the overall colors of the creme and gold package, though for me it would be better without the vinyl roof (which I think contrasted with both the creme and the gold, even when new).
OK Eric, I cannot believe it has taken me nearly fifty years to notice this, but your gripe about the rear window shape made me see it. I had never noticed the different beltlines between the Mark and the Bird – the Marks is straight until it curves abruptly upward at the the beginning of the C pillar, while the Bird’s begins a slow rise at the very back of the door and meets the C pillar higher up.
I think the way Ford ran a band of paint up between the rear quarter window and the vinyl roof’s C pillar on both cars from the very beginning disguised this difference. I know the lines of the Mark IV in my sleep and have never examined the Bird beyond a cursory “yeah, same thing”. Wow, more difference in the sheetmetal than is apparent.
Whoa, talk about subtle differences! I never noticed it either. Now I’m trying to discern if the front fenders are different or does the different wheelwell trim just make it look that way. If they are indeed different, that would make the roof the only sheetmetal these two cars share.
Oddly enough this generation of Thunderbird was never high on my radar until I drove the one I later bought. Sure it was like driving a 5,000 La-Z-Boy, but it did it so well. Quiet, comfortable, and did I mention quiet?
My 1972 Mark IV version of the Tbird, in the sort of rare pastel lime with white top and olive green interior. A cohesive design including the blended in bumpers and continuous lower body side molding that runs from front to rear. Also blended in grill, dipping into the bumper, and the rear spare bulge on the trunk blending into the bumper. The hunkered down driving position is also very cool. I could go on and on about the attractive design or the fantastic quiet and smooth ride quality or the rather powerful and very smooth running 460 engine, and how the 1972 Mark IV being one of the best designs of the 1970s, but everyone knows that – right!
I remember when they were new, and I still look at them as being the epidemy of expensive luxury cars. My Dad had one at his machine and welding shop to have a bumper hitch installed back in 1972. It was owned by the owner of a local bank. My Dad told me to drive it around to the side of the building and back it in, so that we could install the hitch. For the short time I drove it, I felt like I was a millionaire – and still do when I drive mine!
You don’t have to sell me on the 72. 🙂 You are right about that being an unusual color combo on these cars.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1972-lincoln-continental-mark-iv-about-fathers-sons-and-cars/
Your Bird must have been set up perfectly to return that kind of mileage. I had the same powertrain in a ’77 Town Car and could not get the MPG into the double digits no matter what. The Town Car is probably heavier than the Bird, but not that much. On the other hand, I did find that 15 MPG on the open road was easily attainable in a 1975-76 Cadillac.
Mine had factory dual exhaust and a 3.00:1 rear axle.
My father-in-law purchased a ’74 Thunderbird brand new. After it made a trip back to the dealer it was soon getting what I have reported in mine. Prior to the dealer visit, it had single digit fuel mileage.
We have compared many notes on our Thunderbirds over the years.
I usually don’t bother to post something like this, but I owned EXACTLY the featured car. For a moment I wondered if it wasn’t it?
I don’t have much to report on the Big Bird, about like the recent ’64 Imperial description, just had ho-hum nothing feelings for it. I knew it’d be a loser when I bought it but it was sort of a compassion purchase to help the previous owner.
I had another one, all jade green everywhere, inside and out. Don’t recall much about it either. Shrug
I love how you were so excited to see this that you stopped your car and left the door wide open while taking these pix, you probably left it running too as you were too afraid it would sell and be taken to its new home before you could properly park… 🙂
You know this isn’t really my thing, but you also know I could happily wheel around a wood-paneled Country Squire in its stead so I’m not sure what that means exactly. Perhaps that there’s something for everybody and I hope that you ended up pulling the trigger on what is obviously your “Forever Car” and we can look forward to regular COAL updates from now on.
Yes, I did (later realize) the door was left often. We all have our pet passions in automobiles.
This one needed a home other than mine. That said, I would not rule out getting another one some day but I would want a different color. My garage is big enough to fit one without issue.
Yes your two-car garage is probably big enough for one Thunderbird. 🙂 The downstairs one, I don’t know…
Thunderbird love is emotional, not logical. From the moment it appeared, the Thunderbird offered owners an emotional experience. As a two-seater, a massive coupe, a four door sedan, or a turbo-charged bar of soap, the main selling point of a Thunderbird was the emotions it generated.
A Thunderbird could be a plush jet fighter, a velour-tufted bordello, an overwrought Fairmont, or an Empty-Nester’s retirement ride. Every generation of Thunderbird slaps the face of logic. No one needed a Thunderbird, but many wanted what a Thunderbird meant.
This generation offered owners their own personal rolling Studio 54, complete with an orgy room in the back. You didn’t have to use this car in that manner, however, the opportunity to play Caligula was there. The coach lamps, the thick shag carpeting, the seclusion behind the high driver’s bench seat, offered privacy to have thoughts of champagne kisses and caviar dreams, right? Fake wood trim complete with heavy ornamentation? Check! Road isolation befitting the International Space Station? Check! A massive dash filled with idiot lights? Check! Eight track sound system? Check! This generation was opulence befitting the upstairs at Miss Kitty’s Longbranch Saloon.
Anyone making fun of a Thunderbird by pointing out its impracticality, is revealing their hatred towards Bacchanalian living and need to return to their soul-deadening logical rides.
I think the Mustang made the TBird irrelevant for a decade, and then the Mustang II helped redefine the ‘Bird. And then the Fox platform made them siblings … or at least cousins. An interesting path, but not one I was interested in following after I had a brief Bullet Bird obsession when I was about six years old.
One of the experiences every automotive minded person needs to gain for themselves is the joys of a Thunderbird
I mostly enjoyed my ’83 Turbo Coupe. But probably for reasons almost polar opposite of the experience in a ’76.
Thunderbird is one of the few models were the simple name carries with it an undeniable aura, one which almost seems to transcend time.
I can’t say I experienced that. But it did seem to try to transcend time a bit at 120 mph in the Mojave Desert. I’m less confident that this ’76 would do that.
When one is exposed to the ample charms of the most buxom Thunderbird ever built, the experience is exponentially greater.
I’m going to have to take your word on that. I guess I’ve missed out on something. Sort of like the charms of a ’72 LTD but even much greater yet, I assume? 🙂
At one point I had the goal of owning every generation of T-Bird built. I’m as far down that path as I was twenty years ago…
There was a three year span of having my ’75 and ’96 Thunderbirds parked in the driveway together. Talk about a chasm of differences. Their only commonality was two-doors, rear drive, and cylinder count. The ’75 had the off-idle grunt of a tugboat (it’s not hard to figure out why) and the ’96 had a 4.6 that started its happy spot about 3k rpm. One rode soft and one stiff. One got twice the fuel mileage of the other. One had a speed limiter (at about 112 if memory serves) and the other had other things speed limiting it.
The ’75 was not the perfect car (although it had some terrific attributes) but it definitely appealed to certain parts of the brain. I could also say the same things about the ’96, so I suppose the ultimate takeaway is the Thunderbird always had something that appealed to one’s senses, although the appeal could be different.
The ’75 Thunderbird is to the Thunderbird line what the ’72 LTD was to the LTD line – both were the pinnacle of sorts, be that whatever it may be.
The 1976 was in many ways the last real Thunderbird. The decontented, downsized, generation that followed, albeit highly successful, was little more than a Torino with hidden headlights. The aero bird of the mid ‘80’s was an improvement and very nice (and different) car, but it didn’t have the presence of these 460 powered, luxo-cruisers.
Or would we have to go back to before the commingling with the Mark series for the last “pure” ‘Bird?
I’d sooner make that case for the 1971. To me the 72-76 is a decontented Mark IV, and it looks it with its differences not being much different from typical Ford cues – the front end is basically a carbon Copy of that years LTD, at least the bunkie beaks were distinctive, as were the three bodystyles(suicide door sedan, upright formal roof and chopped top fastback).
And really besides losing the 460 option, what else is really missing from the 77? The chassis isn’t much different, the styling is arguably better(in terms of being distinctive from which it’s derived), the interior quality was about the same, you just had to spring for some options.
These always seemed like tarted-up Ford LTDs to me at the time. The 1977 model had more distinctive styling, and the smaller size didn’t hurt the car’s stature at all. I’d rank this generation as my second least-favorite Thunderbird, after the awkward 1980-82 models.
There is something oddly seducing to the imagery of a big luxo coupe in the southwest that Ford put in those brochures, that cover shot in particular. Maybe it’s the isolation, and in effect the lack of outside pressures that influence your choice – you’re not looking at this against a twisty mountain road or a dense big city – it’s the desert, all by itself where just about any car would be out of its element, and what would be better than a big creamy air conditioned coupe to glide over it in? Jeeps and 4x4s are for the reality, this is for the fantasy. The fantasy is what’s missing from the automotive experience now, and the decline and demise of the Thunderbird may well represent the decline and demise of the automotive fantasy for stark greyscale reality.
Enough of that though, I never was a fan of this generation as it struck me as the same kind of brand purgatory the Mercury Cougar found itself in around the same time – great names on placeholder cars, with the big differentiation effort being changing the opera window shape from the cars they were clearly derived from. I’m challenged to like the 67-71 generation but the effort was still clearly there to keep the Thunderbird a special product, maybe too much so, offering 3 bodystyles by 1971, but this generations necessary culling of bodystyles to what was clearly the bones of the Mark IV made it quite apparent that the Tbird was no longer the prom queen for Ford, Lincoln had reclaimed its aspirational role from the humble Ford that transcended brand hierarchy for so many years, and the Tbird played second fiddle to Lincoln from that moment on right through to the Mark VIII
I know that the attitude this article was written in was tongue in cheek. However that is exactly how people thought of these cars when they were new. These cars were the end of the road for the 1950’s era thinking. Back in the ’50s standard American cars were pretty plain, especially the lower tier cars like Chevy, Ford ,and Plymouth. They started out the Fifties equipped with six cylinder engines, three speed manual transmissions, a heater and maybe an AM radio. If you wanted a car with all the goodies you had to get the higher priced cars. Many luxuries were not even available in the lower lines. By the middle of the 60’s a Cadillac or Buick was usually fully equipped with A/C, cruise control, FM radio, and power windows and seats. While everyday Americans would travel in their Plymouth, they would dream of the quiet, spacious, air conditioned comfort of a Lincoln. All the luxury makes had plenty of power, steep hills or headwinds didn’t slow them down, and they could rocket down the straight highways of the American West. The Big Three started to build higher trimmed models with almost every option available, a working man’s version of a Cad or Lincoln, the LTD, or Caprice.These big cars were the best road trip cars of the times. There weren’t any foreign competitors around yet. If you had a choice between driving your non a/c, 6 cylinder Ford Falcon, or your rich Uncle’s Thunderbird on a long trip, which would you choose? People still like spacious luxury. Look at all those parking lots filled with fancy full size pick ups and SUVs. If you can afford the payment and the gas bill you can still travel in comfort.
I tried to talk my Dad into buying one of these in 1973 when he bought the LTD instead. Such a nice looking car in midnight blue if memory serves.
After buying the LTD, the dealer sent him a brochure when the ‘74 came out, and I think either the cover photo or a picture inside was of the featured color combination. I remember thinking that despite the big bumpers we all hated back then, the back end of the ‘74 thru ‘76 looked great integrating them very well. If those cars didn’t have sequential turn signals, they should have!
As to the T-Bird experience… ahh the memories…. very fond ones indeed. My base ‘83; my loaded ‘88 LX-V8, the ex’s ‘88 Turbo Coupe, her ‘94 LX-V8, or my last one, the ‘97. I loved them all. My Mustang is my favorite T-Bird’s spiritual successor, but as much as I love it, it’s just not the same. I so miss the PLC… 😢
Nice post, Jason.
In the spirit of this article, these cars do have a certain swashbuckling kind of cool.
Here’s one from Craigslist: Love the color–“Mahogany Fire”!
https://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/ctd/d/waterbury-1973-ford-thunderbird-53k/7231163224.html
I worked with someone who had a ’76 that was plagued with a plethora of issues. He gamely repaired each one, and held onto it for a couple of years, but always referred to it as the “Thundert–d!” The copper/bronze colored one looks good, but I have never been impressed with the bulkiness of this edition.