(first posted 10/03/2012) Once, while working on my ’63 Galaxie, I used a cheater bar to remove a bolt. It slipped, causing me to hit my forearm on the bumper and necessitating a late-night trip to the emergency room. Using a cheater bar seemed like a good idea at the time.
Another time, when I desired a root beer float but had no vanilla ice cream, I substituted chocolate. It tasted wretched, although it seemed like a good idea at the time.
The old adage of “it seemed like a good idea at the time” just seems to reek of an unfortunate outcome. In this case, it might also help explain the 1980 Ford Thunderbird.
For its Eighth Generation, Ford dipped and marinated the Thunderbird in a barrel of Slim-Fast. As a result, it shed nearly 700 pounds of road-hugging weight, lost 16″ in overall length and shrank 5.5″ in wheelbase. Maybe it was a good idea at the time, what with the recent fuel crisis, current recession and stricter CAFE standards looming on the horizon. The Thunderbird was the last full-figured holdout in the Ford fleet, the rest of which had been downsized a year or two earlier.
If you’ve ever lost a lot of weight, or know someone who has, you know there’s more to successful weight loss than what the scale reads. Thirty-two years after its introduction, this generation Thunderbird still looks a lot like this poor soul.
The Seventh Generation 1977-79 Thunderbird had been a monumental success for Ford, selling 284,141 units even in worst-selling 1979. In 1978, the best-selling year for that generation, sales of the Torino-based ‘Bird totaled 352,751.
There will always be those who speak the contrary but sometimes, big-boned girls can look pretty darn fine.
On the other hand, certain thin girls don’t look so good, in an emaciated, anemic sort of way. Being nothing but a sack of skin and bones can both be less than aesthetically pleasing and reinforce the perception of emaciation and anemia.
For 1980, anemia was definitely the buzzword around Ford’s engine department. There were still two V8 engines available, the 255 cu in (4.2-liter) and time-honored 302 cu in (5.0-liter). Their horsepower ratings were truly distinctive, and for the wrong reasons, at 115 and 131, respectively.
If that wasn’t frightful enough, Ford would rub salt in that CAFE-inflicted wound midway through the 1980 model year with an 88-hp, 200 cu in (3.3-liter) straight-six as standard equipment. It gave the ’80 Thunderbird the dubious distinction of being the first ‘Bird powered by six cylinders.
Like any Rhode Island Red chicken, the ‘Bird could definitely walk and expertly spread it wings. It simply was ill-equipped to fly.
For those who prized leisurely cruising and comfort over raw acceleration, the Thunderbird was still a fine chariot to own. Granted, it was smaller in every dimension and now advertised as a four-passenger vehicle, unlike its five (or more)- passenger predecessors. Then again, how often did a Thunderbird actually carry more than two passengers?
That aside, there was one distinct positive for all 1980 Ford models, including the Thunderbird: The venerable AOD (automatic overdrive) transmission. It would go on to lead a very long and successful life, hanging out beneath countless Ford-produced cars and pickups.
During the three model years of this generation, from 1980 to 1982, Ford sold 288,638 of these new Thunderbirds. In 1980, the most successful year, 156,803 units were sold. With sales dropping by almost half in 1981, and again in 1982, they weren’t exactly flying out of the dealerships anymore.
The parents of a high-school friend of mine owned a solid-white ’80 Thunderbird. At the time, I thought this generation of Thunderbird was just about the ultimate: Their design was at once so much more contemporary than the ’77 to ’79 models, yet more traditional than the ’83 to ’86s. At least it certainly seemed so at the time.
Their snow-white Thunderbird demonstrated the sheer durability of this Fox platform-based generation. It was powered by the mighty 3.3-liter straight six engine. I rode in that car many times, and found its red, split-bench seat interior highly comfortable. My friend’s father was a rural letter carrier with a daily route of slightly over 120 miles. Roughly 70 miles of it comprised the kind of gravel roads that tortured suspensions and butchered tires. He drove the route for several years, always in his Thunderbird. Suffering at least one flat tire per day, the nearly 10-year-old Thunderbird ran the mail route six days a week, and served as the family car when off-duty.
This Thunderbird generation has some obvious and distinct shortcomings, but mechanical and structural integrity are not among them. So why didn’t these Thunderbirds begin to approach the success of the previous generation? One factor was the sales-stifling economy of the early 80’s, which hurt the entire auto industry. But was that all?
Most likely not. Certainly, size was a consideration; contrast the ’80 Thunderbird with the ’76 model. At a time when people were accustomed to truly full-sized cars, the ’80 Thunderbird was considered a compact. Change doesn’t come easily for some.
Styling is another possible reason. Try as they did, the look of these cars did not effectively evoke or evolve the previous generation. Ford might have thought it a good idea at the time, but shifting so many 1977 design cues onto the ’80 models simply didn’t work. Perhaps they should have followed their own example and created something distinct: How much similarity do you see between this ’76 and the ’79 near the top of the page?
All in all, was it a good idea at the time? Maybe, and maybe not. The car wasn’t horrible in its own right, and certainly more attractive than a contemporary Monte Carlo. In the context of its Thunderbird lineage, though, it was a big miss. This Fairmont-based chariot seriously eroded the cachet of the Thunderbird name.
As regular Curbside Classic readers know, certain General Motors products have rightfully earned recognition as Deadly Sins. Might I suggest an “F” for Ford’s mistakes? How about a Ford FUBAR?
I am going to shock everyone with a positive comment. I like it.
Whoooo Hoooo! I am no longer alone on this!! My Fox bird is Awesome!!
You’re not the only one, MikeArm. I like this generation of Thunderbirds a lot myself, especially the 1982 Heritage Edition in particular.!!!
Give me a 1962 Thunderbird convertible, top down, tunes up,…..We’re out for a ride, its all ahead of us.
Ford should not have wasted their energies on the Fairmont Futura; that would have been the perfect vehicle for a downsized T-bird. Or they could have taken the Futura and modified it. But those times were so desparate and chaotic, with everyone rushing to downsize.
I wondered if the series would get to this variety of ‘bird, and now I realize these had already been discussed. A co-worker bought one of these when they were new and he was extremely disappointed with it. I remember him saying that he had wanted a new Thunderbird for 10-12 years and, now, that he finally could afford one, it was a piece of crap. He didn’t keep the ‘bird very long, less than a year; it was replaced with a Cutlass of some variety.
I once drove one of these across the Dakotas in college. I didn’t really care for the styling, but overall I thought it was decently solid and comfortable. Styling aside, one of the better cars of the early 80’s I’d say.
“…certainly more attractive than a contemporary Monte Carlo…”
Not in this universe. I’d pick the Monte over this super-Fairmont any day.
I liked these because they were so small, they seemed sporty. You could get a base model without a vinyl roof and a base front bumper that matched the rear. They were available with Recaro buckets. I was 24 at the time, and remember my grandfather saying he had looked at one and was surprised it didn’t have disappearing wipers. Just another example of de-contenting. I felt the same way when I discovered the 70’s ‘Birds dropped the wrap-around rear seat and sequential turnsignals. I am not a fan of the ’83 Thunderbird. Pure jelly-bean. Always looks like an unfinished styling buck to me. A Thunderbird in name only. As one entry above suggested–park an ’83 beside a ’65…ugh! The sleeker ’87 facelift was an improvement. My dad had an ’89 Thunderbird- -fleetcar interior/0 resale value.
The thing that struck me when I first saw one of these ‘Thunderbirds’ was how desperate Ford had become… And how cynical.
The slab-sided look on these was there for the same reason it was on the Chrysler K cars. It’s the cheapest shape to stamp out and the easiest to assemble. Compare the 60’s Fairlaine to the 80’s Fairmont and guess which one is the cheap car.
Now, let’s take the Fairmont, and make it a “Thunderbird”! Maybe if we hang it with all the trappings it will fool everybody into thinking it’s a luxury car, ya think?
I was very glad to see the next generation of T-bird, and then the Taurus. I have always thought that there must have been a very bloody coup inside Ford where someone seized control, put a few thousand accountants up against the wall, and thereby saved Ford.
What really happened is that Henry Ford II finally retired in 1980, he was really one of the big fans of the classical neo-baroque square edged styling. I imagine that along with Hank the deuce, there were probably a whole bunch of other old timer “yes” men that probably turned in their Mark’s and moved down to Palm Beach around that time too.
Thank you for including the interiors page of the brochure. I never before knew what a “Flexolator” was, even though I own a 1994 Ford Taurus whose brochure mentions them but dors not define them.
Weird, but…
“Flexolator”? Sounds like a movie with Ah-nuld Schwarzenneger.
I understand it is Ford’s precursor of the “Flux capacitor”. Five years later Dr. Emmet Brown made it work in a DeLorean.
But for this bird it means “Back to no Future.”
Jimmy Carter, disco, polyester, the Iran hostage crisis, malaise, rising gas prices,and the FUBAR Bird.Just like the year itself, memorable for all the wrong reasons
To be fair to Ford, this Bird landed in a perfect economic storm. Nobody was selling cars.
But, this Bird was pretty awful. I saw an ’80 Monte Carlo this past Monday, and it was quite good looking for a heavily sculpted small car. It sported the new for ’80 quad headlights, and was the best looking Monte of its generation.
This Bird looked like luxury metal and trim bolted to an economy car, which is exactly what it was. GM, and even Chrysler for that matter, moved typical styling cues like hideaway wipers and frameless window door glass from its big coupes to the downsized versions. Ford couldn’t be bothered.
Add to that the complete lack of courage Ford took with downsizing. The basic instructions were to use the GM play book, but miniaturize Ford ’70s design cues and bolt them on. The result was this mess.
I was thinking the same, they were probably high five-ing themselves in the design studio when these were done, thinking that they had “successfully” transferred all of the 1977-1979 Thunderbird design cues down to something about the size of a 1978 GM A-body, seeing how well the downsized 78 GM’s were received, they though that there was nothing left to do but stand back at watch the cash roll in. Boy were they wrong!
The fancy Ford Fairmont with hidden headlights, opera windows, and landau roof. How cynical of Ford to actually produce this crap car.
Parked next to a 1979 Buick Regal or Olds Cutlass, this T-bird doesn’t look THAT bad.
Still, like a ’79 Regal/Cutlass, a car that I would never own.
The whole 1980 Thunderbird/Futura thing sounds a lot like something Chrysler would have done. Consider that the Futura came out with the basket-handle roof styling cribbed from the then-current Thunderbird. Suppose Ford had, instead, held off on the introduction of the Futura and used that car as the basis for the downsized 1980 Thunderbird. Truly, it’s quite unlikely the Fox ‘Bird would experience even a fraction of the ire and sales might not have been nearly as bad, either.
It’s that formal roof that kills it. But, then, formal roofs were all the rage at the time, with both GM and Chrysler having already embraced that styling cliche for years. Usually, when a car company is late to some kind of styling trend, they do a better job of it. But, in this case, it didn’t pan out that way.
There are some cars about which my attitudes have softened from the passage of time. Some cars that I did not like at all in times past, but which I am more receptive to now, if for no reason other than nostalgia.
This is not one of those cars. It was a little troll of a car in 1980, and still is all these years later. FUBAR, indeed.
Are you kiddin me? Parked next to a 1980 Regal or Cutlass or Grand Prix, the “T-Bird” looks pretty bad.
My father brought a used one home from the Ford dealer for my mom, while I was visiting, and that was my reaction–“are you serious?”. My mother liked it even less.
They got a used 81 Fairmont instead.
My dad had one of these in yellow, with a light brown half-vinyl top and the 255. Yuck! He traded it on a silver ’87 with the 302, which was light-years, and I mean LIGHT-YEARS, cooler.
I wonder if there was an alternate proposal to move the Thunderbird to the Panther as a specialty coupe, similar to what Mopar did with the Cordoba/Mirada twins? That might have worked better.
I’m sure they would have if it weren’t for CAFE. Without CAFE none of this shit would have happened, and we wouldn’t be infested with pickup trucks either.
Well, I think there still would have been some sort of move towards downsizing, but probably not so extreme.
Now then you mentionned the Cordoba/Mirada, what if the 1980 Cordoba was the 1980 T-bird instead? I think we might had a different history.
Or keeping the Futura roofline for the 1980 T-bird instead of the Fairmont. It’s another “what might have been”.
This paragraph caught my attention:
“The parents of a high-school friend of mine owned a solid-white ’80 Thunderbird. At the time, I thought this generation of Thunderbird was just about the ultimate: Their design was at once so much more contemporary than the ’77 to ’79 models, yet more traditional than the ’83 to ’86s. At least it certainly seemed so at the time.”
Birds are aerodynamic animals, how else cold they fly? Pigs on the other hand…
In a way the Thunderbird had to get worse before it could get better.
Thunderpig?
These were the Photo Montage Compilations on Ford similarly sized Mid-Sized Automobiles in 2 Door Coupe Models as relevant to the T’Bird shown here. YES they were ALL intentionally picked in various shades of Red. They are as follows: 1965 Ford Mustang 2 Door Coupe (Top Row Left), 1970 Ford Mustang 2 Door Coupe (Top Row Right), 1970 Ford Mustang 2 Door Fastback Coupe (Second Row Left), 1973 Ford Mustang Grande 2 Door Coupe (Second Row Right), 1973 Ford Mustang 2 Door Fastback Coupe (Third Row Left), 1969 Ford Falcon 2 Door Coupe (Third Row Right), 1976 Ford Maverick 2 Door Coupe (Fourth Row Left), 1976 Ford Granada 2 Door Coupe (Fourth Row Right), 1978 Ford Fairmont 2 Door Coupe (Fifth Row Left), 1978 Ford Fairmont Futura 2 Door Coupe (Fifth Row Right), 1981 Ford Granada 2 Door Coupe (Sixth Row Left), 1980 Ford Thunderbird 2 Door Landau Coupe (Sixth Row Right), 1985 Ford Thunderbird 2 Door Coupe (Seventh Row Left), 1988 Ford Thunderbird 2 Door Coupe (Seventh Row Right), 1989 Ford Thunderbird 2 Door Coupe (Bottom Row Left) & 2002 Ford Thunderbird 2 Door Roadster (Bottom Row Right). With the exception of the Jaguar based Ford Thunderbird and the 1989-97 last larger version of the Ford Thunderbird, most of the cars pictured here were either Ford Falcon based or the later Fox based versions.
The 1980s were something you survived…not something you look back on with fondness.
As a kid in the 80s, I think it was a mixed bag. Some good movies, awesome toys and generally good times. Cars and music were a mixed bag. On one hand, you had turbo Mopars, 5.0 Mustangs and Japanese sportscars, as well as the Scorpions, Def Leppard, and ZZ Top..AND the babes in ripped jeans with their big hair and heavy makeup. But the, you also had smogged out V8s, crappy fwd American cars, Poison, Michael Jackson, and Culture Club….AND a bunch of GUYS wearing tight jeans, big hair and heavy makeup…..
FWIW, I would take any 80s era sports coupe with its potentially turbo’d engine as opposed to any of the frumpy looking cookie cutter sedans and CUVs of today.
Steve Earle’s Guitar Town, Raising Arizona, Blade Runner, Back in Black (just), Straight Outta Compton, Fear of a Black Planet (recording of), It Takes a Nation of Millions…, Toto IV, Midnight Run, Juice Newton’s version of Angel of the Morning, Nissan Cue-X; but yes, most of the 80s were hard to stomach.
Miami Vice, parachute pants, electronic carburetors, Tandy computers, cassette tapes, Beta, VHS…
Ugh.
Hey now…..Miami Vice is awesome. I thought you would understand as a Five-O fan.
Okay, I retract that. How about Alf.
Alas, Jack Lord went off the air in 1980.
Charles in Charge.
Five-O did manage to eek into the 80’s, just barely, though the 1979-1980 seaon of Hawaii Five-O was re-run as “McGarrett” on CBS late night, after 11 for 2 seasons.
Though I was referring more to the similarities, really Miami Vice is an MTV & coked up version of Hawaii Five-O, right down to the sunny location, instrumental theme song and flashy credits.
I remember the big lead up to ALF, back in the ye olde pre-internet days, when you really didn’t know what the new shows were going to be about until they made their debuts.
Why did they change the name to ‘McGarrett’? Was there ever a more distinctive name for a TV series than Hawaii Five-O?
I imagine that they (CBS) still retained the right to air the shows but probably didn’t want to pay Leonard Freeman’s production company for the use of the name or something like that.
I agree. Miami Vice was the $h!t. It brought the cop show into the modern age and helped to revitalize all those cool old Art deco buildings in the Miami area that were falling apart.
Plus Tubbs owned a sweet Curbside Classic 64 Deville convertible.
Oh and since this is Thunderbird week. One of the other Vice cops Switek, owned a sweet looking T-Bird that they used on the job once in a while when the bug van was out of commission.
Hey look, another Thunderbird Week tie-in!
The seventies were pretty awful too. But the later eighties were okay. Maybe the worst years of the two decades were 1973-83. But I met the love of my life in ’84, so perhaps I’m biased.
Please. Having grown up during the 80’s there was plenty of things that made that decade good. Just because a few early 80’s cars had underpowered engines doesn’t condemn the entire decade.
Just as with today you had to exercise some intelligence when ordering a car, buying an appliance or buying a house etc. I think movies, music and the entertainment industry were far more interesting back then compared to today with all the idiotic reality shows and movies that use the F word 20 times per second or need to have an explosion ever 5 seconds to make up for a total lack of plot. We have reached a point when new ideas are few and far between and things are often regurgitated for lack of fresh
thinking. Cars mostly all look alike, old classic songs are being re-sung by today’s bands, movies are being re-made and children spend more time on there cell phones or playing video games than they do in school!
I agree that the 80’s was a mixed bag but so were the 70’s, the 90’s and the 2000’s. I find the 2001-2010 decade to be one of the worst. The twin tower disaster. The financial crisis in 2008. War, record inflation and oil prices. Record debt. Stores closing in droves, record unemployment, recession, losing 6 car companies and the family unit is not what it once was. If anything the decade of the 2000’s will never be fondly remembered by me.
I rather liked the looks of the Cougar version when it came out in 80. I had plenty of opportunities to check it out as my POS 78 Zephyr was in the shop every month. I would not, could not, consider ever plunking down my hard earned bux on any Fox platform, thanks to my POS Zephyr.
First and foremost, a root beer float with chocolate ice cream is known around the Saint Louis area as a “Brown Cow”. I’m sorry you didn’t find this as delicious as so many have.
Now…I’m seriously thinking about buying a 1982 Town Landau. I’ve never owned a Thunderbird, never owned a coupe that wasn’t a convertible, but it’s been so lovingly kept that I just feel compelled to buy it. If the owner would come down $500 on the price..
The only thing that keeps from buying it is that I’m also looking at a ’77 New Yorker which is almost a perfect copy of my first car.
Decisions, decisions.
Oh, yes, the Brown Cow. I lived in Hannibal at the time of said float; my in-laws still live near St. Louis.
OMFG, FUBAR is the perfect acronym.
I used to pal around with a guy in H.S. who had one of these. Looked nearly identical, same color and evertthing. I remember it had the same clunky wheelcovers that clinked and clanked from loose spokes and/or pebbles caught inside. AND it had this infernal squeak whenever you cycled the front suspension. A set of urethane bushings from Energy Suspension would’ve cured it…
Never really liked these cars; overstyled bricks. Shame, really.
Why is there so many comments on this today? Ive been here about 1 year & haven’t seen but a few , but today many.
Check the posting dates.
Considering that, after Mustang, Thunderbird is the nameplate most associated with Ford, it makes sense that there would be a high number of comments, particularly on the version that is to Thunderbird fans what the Mustang II is to Mustang enthusiasts.
Bring on the Furd Deadly Sins I say.
1) Pinto
2) Mustang II
3) Edsel
4) Consul Capri.
5) 1980 Chunderbird
6) The Fox platform LTD.
7) The flathead V8.
Thats off the top of my head.
Theres been plenty of GM bashing here, lets give Henry a roast
Don’t forget the ’58 Lincoln.
Thanks Bryce & Pete, forgot about those horrors.
Toss in the EA Falcon and the Ford Crapi from down under too.
Sure you don’t mean the AU?
The 1977 Lincoln Granada oops Versailles.
In 1986 a close friend purchased a loaded 1982 Thunderbird Town Landau from the original owner. They had special ordered it from the factory. It was white with a white landau top and red cloth interior. I always thought it was a rather odd looking car. I didn’t hate it but I didn’t love it, either. It was a mixed bag in the interior, too. When he went over bumps I remember the steering column shaking and the dash vibrating. In a T-bird? Loaded with luxury features? It never sat well with me. I always remember him complaining that it was very underpowered. It had the small 3.3 litre V-6 and it really couldn’t get out of its own way. His mother ended up taking the T-bird and drove it for several more years until it became a rust bucket and was junked. I think Ford was simply in a basic rush to get a downsized T-bird out to the public and used what they had available in the Fairmont platform to create this Thunderbird. Considering it was 1980 it wasn’t the worst possible result but it wasn’t a great one either, hence the 3 year life cycle of the little square T-bird. Ironically at the same time my Dad owned a 1982 Country Squire that felt Lincoln-esque compared to my friend’s T-bird. Maybe if Ford used the Panther platform and created a sculpted looking coupe that would have worked better for them? At least the 1983 T-bird was a hit and truly deserving of the Thunderbird name.
3.3 Liter was a 200 cu/in Straight 6. I had the same engine in, a 1982 Mustang. Certainly, easy to work on. Log Intake Manifold built into the Head, did the engine no favors.
I actually like these cars in certain trims, my favorite is the Silver Anniversary Edition. At the time, the electronic key pad door locks and digital dash were really cool, at least to my 13 year old eyes!
I read an article about a Ford designer who put a proposal front end design for the up coming 1980 Thunderbird, it resembled an early nineties Imperial and looked much better then the square version Ford ultimately went with.
Amazing, no other Mfg. copied the Key Pad Door locks.
No direct experience with these, although I have spent several decades hating them from afar. Closest I ever got was in early ’80s when my girlfriend’s older sister started dating a guy who (supposedly) was some kind of big deal and (supposedly) made a lot of $$$. He bought one of these, in that black/silver two-tone they offered at the time, presumably in an attempt to remind you of Rolls-Royce/Bentley. IIRC I was only in that car once (back seat) and don’t remember much about the experience, except that there wasn’t a lot of room back there.
This guy and I never really hit it off — but then it was hard to respect somebody who, armed with a budget to buy an above-average-priced car at the time, would drive home with a tarted-up two-tone Fairmont overdressed with a lot of costume jewelry. Later it turned out this guy didn’t have that much money. A fake millionaire with a fake luxury car. After a couple of years playing at being high-roller, he got a job driving a city bus. But my gf’s sis married him anyway.
Worst. ‘Bird. Ever.
The only way to order this car was with the 302 or model years 1980 and 81 only with the TRX suspension and aluminum rim package and the bucket seat console interior. Also skip the gaudy overdone vinyl roof. Even then it was still a Fairmont underneath with rattly shaky interior and that overdone dual front grill and tacky dash.
I sat in a brand new Tbird back in 1980, closed the door, and darkness prevailed. Then the radio switched on by its own volition and kept playing a song similar to the one in “West Side Story.” “I’m so ugly. I’m so ugly. I’m so ugly, ugly, ugly. I’m so ugly, so painfully ugly….” The poor Tbird was doomed from then on.
The Futura was indeed originally a design study of a downsized Thunderbird on the Fairmont platform. With the success of the 77-79 Thunderbird, it should have held on to the unique basket handle roof design for the 1980 redesign. It was a great misstep to not use the Futura body as a Thunderbird. They could have saved all the money they spent making the eventual ugly Thunderbox and put a decent front end on it and put in a much nicer interior. Just look how the picture of this black Futura turned out with the 1983-86 LTD sedan front clip bolted in place. Yes it bolts right on since the LTD was nothing but a restyled Fairmont in the first place. I thought about this very thing back in the early 80’s before anyone ever thought about swapping parts to make it a slant nosed four-eyed wonder.
I had one of these, an ’80 model, I think with the 5.0 liter engine. This was in ’94. It wasn’t powerful, but the engine was smooth and the thing was built like a tank. You could walk on it. It was also indestructible. I ended up giving it to my former high-school’s shop class. Good memories.
The red/white one in the ad isn’t too bad. The tiny wheels all tucked way under doesn’t do it any favors. Just so much gingerbread tacked on to most versions of it. Broughamification at it’s best/worst. to hide it’s vanilla(?) underpinnings.
I love these cars and think they are gorgeous. I hated the 83 which to me looks like a blob. Boring like everything else on the road for years after when all cars got blobby.
I am in love with the huge tail lights on this. No need for that stupid third brake light.
I won’t call the ’80 T-bird a paragon of anything, but to my eye it’s a whole hell of a lot less offensive than the grossly bloated ’79. The ’80 was mercifully relieved of the drunken, incoherent mashup of melted-bar-of-soap-shaped extra little windows, randomly-angled lines forced to pretend to get along with their neighbours, and cartoonishly-overlong front end. The sail panel/C-pillar on the ’80 is rather too chunky, but given the choice I’d take it in a flash over the rolling this-is-your-brain-on-drugs scarepiece that is the ’79 car.
When they can’t even color match the door with the rear fender in the *ad*, you know there’s a problem. On the other hand, it didn’t look completely hideous in NASCAR trim (RIP Neil Bonnett).
I remember the T-Bird was great at drafting as long as it was the second car, not the lead car. Awesome Bill did win with one and then The Aero came along and Awesome Bill and his brother Ernie bitch slapped the whole lot of them.
Yes – I remember that well, and while it wasn’t the first car designed for the street but with an eye toward the superspeedways, the Aerobird definitely kicked off a wind-tunnel war among the manufacturers. Maybe it was a happy accident on Ford’s part but I doubt it. In fact, I seem to remember Ford redesigning the front clip of the street T-Bird in the mid-90s to respond to the ’95 Monte Carlo, which was eating Ford’s lunch in NASCAR and causing a lot of unhappiness in the Ford garages. Can you imagine such a thing happening today? There’s more to that story too:
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1995-04-13-9504130046-story.html
I may have posted this picture before, but anyway, here it is again.
Roof chopped. Wheel diameter increased with larger wheel openings. Front overhang reduced. Side gills and rear antenna added.
Makes for a rather cool Continental Mark looking car with much better proportions.
Of course, I did not tweak it like the designers could have, but it gives an idea as to the car’s basic design potential. Granted, my opinion.
Wow – a whole lotta hate for this car.
The problem was the styling, not the car.
The car was good when it had the V8.
But in 1980 Detroit was giving up with the traditional car.
Now – the Torino needed to go years earlier. Ford shoved that crappy car throughout the 1970 decade and in many different forms. It wasn’t a very good car. No one wanted a 4000 pound car that seated four in a pinch. It had to go. The TBird version of the Torino was the best of the bunch. TBirds are usually personal coupes and the Torino was a good personal coupe. It was a lousy four door and wagon, but a good coupe. It had to go and the TBird had to have something else.
All Ford had in that size was the Fox. So, that is where it went for the next two generations. The 1980 version, and the 1983 version. 180 styling-wise, but the same car.
The problem was the 1980 styling. There isn’t a single thing on this overloaded styling exercise that was in any way, shape, or form, original. Nothing. We’ve seen every one it its styling clues on other cars. Bigger cars. So putting all that Brougham-esque, out of date styling on a Fairmont, was a disaster. Yes – Ford thought it was a winner in 1980, according to the bragging I have from a contemporary Ford book. No – I don’t know why. This generation of TBird and Cougar XR7 looked like a big box of leftovers from 1976. It was a new decade, but these cars didn’t look the part.
The Lincoln Mark VI was in the same situation, but it seems that because it didn’t sell as well as the Squarebird, we forget that the same problems heaped on the 1980 Thunderbird, was smack-dab right there with its Lincoln counterpart. The Mark VI suffered from the same problems styling wise. Old styling served on a Fox car.
No – the Monte Carlo and the rest of the GM gang wasn’t much of an improvement, however, at least the GM Brougham design looked different. That is because GM didn’t share much sheet metal with the sedans they were based on, while the Ford/Mercury reeked of 1978 Fairmont/Zephyr.
So – for three years, Ford offered this dull looking leftover on the Fox body. Then – Ford gave us the same Fox body, but changed the entire car into the Aerobird, and the Lincoln Mark VII.
Same car – different body.
So – what’s with all the hate?
The styling. As you said. Extremely unattractive. Are you attracted to or want to buy blatantly ugly cars?
How hard was that, to figure out?
How hard was that, to figure out?
As you of all people know – sometimes you just have to wonder.
How did the LeBaron become a success when it has all the same sins as these Thunderbirds?
There was more sheetmetal shared between the 77-79 Tbird and LTD II than there was between the 80-82 Tbird and 80-82 Fairmont and Granada. These were actually a good bit wider than any fox bodied car, and up to this point the most extensively differentiated. All that width is in dead space in the doors and fenders mind you, the narrow looking track widths reflect it.
The Lincoln Mark IV was not based on the Fox platform, it was on the Panther platform.
Personally I think the Tbird is hideous while the Cougar XR7 is passable with it’s more conventional front end. As for the Lebaron, I think the convertible being added to the line added enough novelty to it for the times that it was more positively remembered by the public. If not for that it would just be another gingerbread Lidomobile
Couldn’t have said it better.
After the previous car, this was such a letdown. And that’s from someone around the other end of the world who’s never laid eyes on one in the metal.
The basic shape of a car – any car – has to be attractive; and you can’t rely on layer upon layer of applique to make the car look prestigious. Unfortunately that seems to have been what Ford did. They seemed to have been building up to this throughout the seventies, and it’s as though this was the crowning glory of the applique-makers. Strip off all the shiny stuff and what’s left? Yawn.
Thunderbirds traditionally were long, low, and sleek. Translating past design cues that to the Fox platform somehow seemed to mandate a higher cowl and a Pinocchio-esque front overhang. The famed dash-to-axle distance was all wrong.
An interesting car – okay, curious – but for a kid who was in awe of the sixties T-birds, unworthy of the Thunderbird name. Ford really took their eye off the ball with this one.
Not to mention the useless amount of wasted overweight , this Thundy isn’t either a practical bargain for a delivery pizza’s guy . Bet most ex Soviet automobile’s contemporary designs 1978-1984 aren’t so grotesque as this Ford , yet considered Ford Motor Co. had hundreds times more financial sources for industrial research than whoever Avtoexport’s bunch of companies
Worst new car I ever owned: Three transmissions in 50,000 miles. Never owned another Ford since then. Betcha more than one of us had the same experience.
Ford said “Quality is Job One”. What they meant was that our quality is so bad, our execution of the design in building is the biggest challenge we’re facing. If you want a quality vehicle, look elsewhere.