First impressions last. Wrong. Psychologists say humans develop their strongest positive feelings to someone or something if they hated it at first. For instance, I once detested Hondas. After spending some time driving various Hondas, the brand earned my no-longer-grudging respect. The converse is also true: we reserve our most negative assessments for someone or something that we loved at first. The human psyche doesn't like to be disappointed. Sadly, the 2003 Ford Thunderbird falls into this latter category.
The history of the T-Bird is littered with hits and misses. It is hard to argue that the "Classic Birds," "Square Birds," "Bullet Birds," "Flair Birds" and "Glamour Birds" of the fifties and sixties aren't momentous automotive designs. And then the seventies happened.
Back when bottoms had bells, Ford sacrificed art for gargantuan proportions, crude boxy angles and shameless badge engineering. During the eighties and nineties, T-Birds regained some lost ground. But the models were so stylistically removed from their classic ancestors that they defied comparison. Literally.
In the short-lived thirteenth generation, Thunderbird rediscovered its roots. Produced from 2002 through 2005, the "Retro Birds" were Camelot-on-wheels. The model resurrected the classic American two-seat convertible. The round headlights and fog lights, hood scoop, large checkerboard grill and long tapering lines returned, coordinated in a thoroughly modern package. So what if the last T-Bird projected a little more Jackie-O than JFK. Is that really so terrible?
My 2003 tester with 25K miles in Mountain Shadow Gray looked like no other car on the road. In a good way.
From the first glance, the interior impresses. Embossed leather seats comfortably coddle. The dash is organized with elegant simplicity. But then you begin to notice that the Blue Oval beancounters wreaked haptic havoc. The T-Bird's switchgear and gauges are fashioned from cheap brittle plastic that could have been recycled from a bin of '88 Tempo parts, that were (in fact) shared with the already ageing Lincoln LS. The ‘Bird's foot well leaves no spot for the left foot to rest, and the elbow rest on the center console is too high. Forty large for this?
Turn the engine over and you are greeted with a rich V8 burble. Equally impressive: Ford's 180 watt, eight-speaker audio system. You'll want to turn that stereo up to obscure all the squawks and squeaks that plague this bird. The seal between the top of the windshield and the front of the removable hardtop roof eeks like ten-year-old Docksiders®, especially at parking lot speeds. Above 80 mph that same seam begins to howl in the wind. And the steering wheel of my tester moaned like a squeegee on glass with every turn.
For the last T-Bird, Ford sourced the 3.9-liter Jaguar AJ-V8 DOHC engine. From 2003, the powerplant was good for 280 hp and 286 ft-lbs of thrust. The engine features a two-stage variable valve timing system that really launches the 3700lbs. T-Bird when it engages from 3,500 rpm to redline. Sprints from rest to sixty take 6.1 seconds. Rolling starts are much more impressive. So much for paper stats. In reality, ugh.
Ford mated that delightful Jag powerplant to the most dim-witted five-speed automatic I have ever driven. The T Bird's ponderous shifting algorithm is even slow at processing manual inputs from the Tiptronic-style shifter.
The Ford's suspension poses another conundrum that I could not resolve. It provided too little relief from road surface imperfections at low and moderate speeds to make a good boulevard cruiser. At the same time it lacked the tautness required to be an athletic corner carver. The T Bird rolls through the corners deeply from side to side AND up and down. Quick maneuvers elicit poorly dampened yaw angular inertia.
!["Retro" shouldn't apply to ride and handling](http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/img_2081.jpg "\\"Retro\\" shouldn\'t apply to ride and handling")
Is the T Bird supposed to be a sports car or a stylish tourer? It certainly doesn't move with Miata's lithe elegance or bob and weave like a Boxster. Yet its ride is too unrefined and interior too cheap to compete on the luxury front with the likes of Lexus or anything hailing from das Vaterland. It's too expensive to be an economical alternative, yet evidence of cost cutting is everywhere. Why? Affluent Yuppies would have paid ten thousand dollars more for a well built machine.
Ford started with a great design but utterly failed in execution; the company never developed a coherent definition of "relaxed sportiness." And then did nothing to rectify its mistakes. In its final years, Ford made trim and paint changes, including 2005's 50th-anniversary badging.
The retro Thunderbird betrayed the market. It lured pistonheads with drop-dead looks and performance potential- and failed to deliver on anything other than exterior aesthetics. Whittier could have had the "Retro Bird" in mind when he rhymed:
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: "It might have been!"
Test vehicle provided by CarMax
68 Comments on “2003 Ford Thunderbird Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
This sounds almost like a Chevy SSR review, great design flawed by mechanical execution. Just one of the numerous chances Ford had to hit a string of home runs.
I had a chance to drive a VVT T-Bird when they were still new.
In the rain.
With the hardtop in place.
And rain coming through between the hardtop and the windshield.
Wasn’t impressed. I was, however, impressed with that powerful V8! That thing sounds great and really has some get-up-and-go to it.
I drove one of these a couple years back (the friend still has it). I definitely found the entire chassis to be very sloppy, even in mundane around-town driving. I was guessing the engine at ~230hp, since the power didn’t seem all that usable…it appeared to be tuned for noise, first and foremost. I had no idea that leadfooting would see those kinds of 0-60 numbers.
I see what they were doing with the retro, but the car came out looking much “older” (in terms of buyers) than most other retro efforts. In other words, between its look and its price, I can’t imagine anyone under the age of 50 even went to look at them. Nothing against that demographic, but carmakers often try to Ensure their cars appeal to broader base of buyers, especially the potential lifetimers.
Thanks for reinforcing my thoughts; I’ve been thinking about one of these recently having seen a few around here. Wife would love a convertibile but I don’t think I’d buy one of these turkeys.
Maybe if it was real cheap.
Honestly, I always thought this generation of T-Bird was the car that looked worse in person than in pictures. It reminded me of a’57 left in the microwave for a few minutes too long. However, as an example of how not to manage a valuable brand it is high up in the rankings. Maybe if it was a wee bit more affordable, or if the interior was nicer, or if Ford applied running improvements etc. etc. they may have had a winner (or at least something that would have placed). Now it’s just a occasional blip on one’s consciousness when you see an old guy driving it to the golf course.
I was excited about this car coming out in 2003. I went to the dealer for a test drive and was floored by the sticker price. The hard top was 11K on top of that. The salesman told me if it was 29K he could sell them every hour on the hour, but the price was just too high.
I was really surprised when this car came out amid all of the hoopla. What was I missing? I thought the car looked like a lump. There wasn’t enough style for it to be called ugly. It was just this big nothing wallowing down the road. Then I heard about all of the problems with the leaky, squeaky roof scrubbing paint off the car and the cheap interior and thought that Ford was way out of touch with current car design. This car may have been great in 1972. Oh it was retro. It recalled all of the boring crappy designs and execution of the ‘70’s. What a bomb.
I still think this does not look like the classic thunderbirds. It certainly has a retro look to it, but when I see the real thunderbirds that this was modeled after I cannot see the resemblance.
The Thunderbird can’t be faulted for sharing Ford DNA. It’s the same for all manufacturers, foreign and domestic.
That’s why when you sit in a Honda Fit, you know it’s from the same family as the Acura RL.
Conversely, when you sit in a Town Car, you know it’s from the same family as the Focus.
Despite the horrible reviews back when they launched, the equally horrible sticker, I still thought that [externally] this was a great looking car. I’ve never been inside one and I’ve very little lost-love for Ford, yet I inexplicably like this things.
Of course I’d never buy one, but it really begs the question: Why can Ford do the externals so well and fuck up everything else so bad?
Retro bird fever overwhelmed my usual commonsense and disdain for things Ford. The dealer wanted an insane $4,000 premium on top of the already extremely steep list price, and the hard top sold for an enormous additional amount. Test drives were not permitted. God gave me feet for a really good reason. I ran like the wind.
I think he sold two of them, one black and the other yellow. I still see them around here in the summer time. If one goes up for sale I might look at it. I doubt they held their value well.
One other thing of note, when seeing them in person. The 17″ flat-spoked chrome wheels are an abomination. They look like they’re made of painted plastic, or possibly like what you’d find at a “rent-a-dub” place in the seedier parts of town. Very low quality finish that really grabs your attention. My $0.02.
I’ve never driven the year described, but having been behind the wheel of my mother-in-law’s recently restored ‘55 Thunderbird (she’s the original owner), it sounds like an honest interpretation of the original. And that’s not a good thing.
No car in recent memory has gone from “hot” to “not” as quickly as this one did. The reviews were murderous.
The basic problem is that Ford failed to properly reinforce the body structure. This in turn led to softer suspension tuning and sloppier handling than in the LS sedan.
Affluent Yuppies would have paid ten thousand dollars more for a well built machine.
The same is true for the Mustang, which should cost $5,000 more and come with an independent rear suspension.
But at least the ’stang is price-competitive. There was no reason to buy the T-bird other than looks, and that’s just not enough.
A friend of mine and myself each put down a couple of thousand with the local ford dealer for one of these thunderbirds. We got a beautiful packet, a scale model of the car and other wonderful stuff. We were even invited to Philadelphia to drive the car, which we did. But, the PR dept was way ahead of the production dept. Nothing loses it’s luster quicker than newness. Delay after delay and bad press started to do the water torture trick on this car. First we thought, look if we don’t like the car we can flip it for at least what we paid, given the backorders and limited production. However, with each ensuing month, we realized that the entire car was melting out from under Ford and us. So, we asked for and got our deposit back, Ford having no other saleable cars in their store for us, we moved on to foreign iron. How many of others were like us out there in America in 2001?
All this time I have no idea that car was a convertable, I thought it was just a hardtop made to look like one. I have yet to see one with the roof off, and I have seen probably about 10 since it came out.
Why was this car so damn expensive when it came out, I could never see where that money was going whenever I read stuff on the car. Doesn’t it sit on a slightly modified Mustang platform?
I would rather have a late 80’s or 90’s T-bird than this kind of ugly car.
Doesn’t it sit on a slightly modified Mustang platform?
The Retro Bird shares the DEW98 platform with the Lincoln LS and the Jaguar S-type. The current Mustang uses the D2C platform, which is unique to the Mustang.
I worried that it’s Ford quality would be the problem and it sounds like it was.
The domestics have to understand that their cars MUST last 200K miles with few issues. Their customers would welcome the resale value.
When the T-bord arrived I got excited – expected some style beyond the basic shape of the car but no, like the article reads – it is standard Ford inside.
Remember when cars came with body color panels inside? Remember when chrome was everywhere? That’s part of the charm of those cars.
Obviously the original vehicles had body color everwhere b/c they were steel inside and out. Obviously all of that chrome could blind the driver on a bright day but it coudl be done safely. See the BMW Mini. See the VW Beetle.
I heard a story from a used-car dealer friend. He bought one used with under 10K miles on it for pennies b/c it just wasn’t a popular seller…
The T-Bird is an example of Detroit’s problem to me: this car isn’t best of anything. Not the most durable, not the most trendy, not the most sporty, not the most luxurious, etc. Just ho-hum for big bucks.
And I still want to like it.
That 3.9 is the engine the Lincoln Taurus should have. Not some puny V6.
The DEW98 was actually a really good chassis, but it was expensive and Ford made a lot of compromises on every car they built off it.
The S-Type R and LS Sport were probably the best of the lot, let down by reliability and an anemic powertrain respectively. The Thunderbird was the worst.
William, thanks for a great read.
To all the TTAC journalists — personally, I love reading about new car impressions, but it’s equally as interesting to find out how formerly new vehicles are getting on.
From what I’ve read from TTAC commenters, this group of educated pistonheads will all likely let owner A of a desirable vehicle take the depreciation hit. And we’ll swoop in, buy at bargain prices, and drive our used cars all the way to the bank.
For example, a new Porsche 911, 996 version would have set you back, with most popular options, mid- to upper-seventies in say, 2000. Today, the 996 has fallen below prices being asked for older 993 models, making the 996 possibly the performance bargain of the decade.
Or is it?
Wring one out for us, please.
I’m also wondering…
How’s a five year-old Miata holding up? As well as an S2000?
Whatever happened to Lotus Esprit? Is it even worth putting on a shopping list any more?
Remember the Mercury Marauder? How’s grampa’s hotrod today?
The Chevette is heaped with scorn on this site. But is it really as bad as we remember? Could it possibly make an Aveo look good in comparison?
The DEW98 was actually a really good chassis, but it was expensive and Ford made a lot of compromises on every car they built off it.
Is that NOT Ford excuse for everything they cant appear to get right but the rest of the automotive world just does! I cant buy the arguement that such things like RWD chassis and IRS are TOO expensive. How is it that smaller companies like Nissan can manage to equip their cars with such and still make a profit while Ford can’t?
How is it that Ford designs a platform and then decides that it is too expensive to effective make use of and why do they feel comfortable telling us this fact? I only get the impression that Ford is a company that does NOT have a clue.
Back to that T-bird.
The first question regarding this car that I feel was never successfully answered is Who T F actually wanted a retro T-Bird?
The answer to that question was answered over 40 years ago, NO ONE REALLY! Why the hell do you think the T-bird kept growing and changing? The original was NOT a valid, sustainable concept. There is NO point to a compromised two seat car that does NOT drive or handle well. Chevy got that message quickly with the Vette and made moves to make the Vette a 50 year success. Ford on the otherhand had no plans to even add any real tech or effort into the T-bird and that is why the car constantly changed to fit the “flavor of the model year”. 2dr 2 seat, 2dr 4 seat, 4dr????
Not for nothing but a Lincoln MarkV, one of the ugliest, tackiest cars ever made was a very popular car in the late 1970s, but do you want one today? Should Ford make a retro Mark V for the remaining leisure-suit hold-outs?
Unless you are a 65 year old “Ford Man” the T-Bird does not rate much. Yuppies do NOT want one and NEVER did!
I remember sitting in one of these in a Ford showroom not long after it came out. My reaction: “40 grand for this, they must be joking”.
If you want that sweet engine in a more complete car at a bargain price, pick up a late model used Lincoln LS.
I never liked the Thunderbird.
the new design to me looked horrible – even for a retro look (try a dodge Challenger). What really turned me off was the stupid movies that used this car in it to promote it.
I knew a two door for this price from Ford would never catch on – but, they’ve been headed down this road ever since they took the Mercury cougar and turned it into a silly little Mitubishi-like sports car. Ford won’t wake up till everyone passes them by.
Nice review, Bill. I drove one when they were new and felt the same way. If you like the look, that’s about all it had going for it. Chopping the roof on the DEW-98 was a terrible, terrible idea.
And the boring Lincoln LS dashboard? Only the Lincoln Mark LT is a better example of Ford’s ruthless beancounting.
The only reason I’d want one is that they are still new enough for my parents to drive (and they like the style) and the 50th Anniv Edition might look nice next in a collection with the 20th, 25th, 30th and 35th commemorative editions.
Ford–even today’s Ford–as well and GM and Chrysler cannot stand to make a low-margin car. Part of this is that they do have cost issues, but a lot is because management is rated by gross margin dollars and percentage, and a low GM% looks really bad to their management, who in turn do the same, all the way up the food chain.
So they do everything they can to get the perceived margin up. Even if discounts and resale and such slaughter the GP, they made their margin target in development.
If you look at the new Focus, you’ll see this mentality in full effect: it wasn’t redesigned to meet a price point, or a design language–those were just secondary–it was done to take cost out of the design. That the car is selling is dumb luck of the worst kind, because it’ll tell Ford’s management that cost cutting is the way to go.
I think, if TTAC has the opportunity, that they should do a retrospective on the DEW98. The sad history of that platform encapsulates perfectly why they’re in their current state.
I’d like to see the LS and S-Type “chapters” as well so that we can get some retrospective on why Ford is in the state it’s in. These were three cars that, given how excellent the underlying platform was, should have been converting 5-Series and E-Class owners en masse and signalling that Ford really had arrived.
But they didn’t, and their replacements (the MKZ/MKS; I don’t know about the Jag) were mediocre by comparison. They didn’t build on the DEW98’s strengths but instead took away everything that made the car worthwhile and came back with something cheaper.
I wanted to like this car when it came out, but just couldn’t. I still can’t. A retro attempt like this should conjure up nostalgia for the original and at the same time be unique and desirable on its own terms. This design achieved neither.
One of the major complaints in reviews of the original 1955 T’bird was poor outward visibility, hence the last minute addition of portholes to the ’56 model. This retro T’bird elaborated the same sin with the silly cut down windows and the ugly windshield frame trying to double as a rollbar. I’m sure many who sat in one of these at the dealer showroom, as I did, quickly decided that this was not a good place to spend any amount of time, though, as the lady program manager for this thing revealed in an early press release, there was indeed a fine little spot created behind the seats to store a woman’s purse. This T’bird is, in my opinion, an excellent example of what passes for “design” today in Detroit; a collection of “cues” and “language” strung together by a committee to fit on some inappropriately sized but readily available “platform”. To further guarantee that this ‘bird wouldn’t fly, the dealers shamelessly embellished the first models to arrive on the lots with huge “market adjustments” to the price. Our local dealer tacked on over $15,000 to the MSRP, thus certainly pissing off large numbers of potential buyers.
The domestics have to understand that their cars MUST last 200K miles with few issues. Their customers would welcome the resale value.
The hucksters at Ford would rather sell under-developed, corner-cutting cheap junk that breaks (so as to sell lots of spare parts) to people who keep ‘buying American’ out of a misguided sense of ‘patriotism’.
Too bad.
A classic look with horrible future.
When I saw the car on the main page, my immediate thought was, “They still sell this thing?” Thankfully, that’s not the case. I have to admit, I find the styling to be simple and elegant, with the exception of the front grille which appears to be made of the same kind of plastic as leaded Chinese toys.
jerry weber : Isn’t that what happened to the Soulstice too?
The new Thunderbird was yet another exercise in price-gouging, both by the manufacturer and dealerships, which quickly ruined what could have eventually been a successful and continuing model run. I read somewhere that the price of the original 1955 Thunderbird, adjusted for inflation, was a whole lot less than what it cost to get into the new Thunderbird when it first came out. Then, towards the end of the 2005 model run, dealerships couldn’t give the things away, virtually assuring cancellation.
To this day, a few leftover 2005 ‘50th Anniversary’ Thunderbirds can still be found lanquishing on lots with dealers still wistfully hoping some dope will plunk down enough money for them to get back the big-bucks they paid for the things.
I think a lot of us would like the 1989-1997 T-Bird back.
davey49,
Count me as one who would LOVE to have the modern equivalent of the ‘89-97 T-Bird back!
Here’s a suggestion for Ford:
Design and Produce a new RWD platform in Small, Medium and Large sizes in order to spread costs across multiple desirable and profitable niche and mainstream models.
For example:
Small: Mustang (and Cougar, perhaps?) And yes, downsize it please (See 1965-1968.)
Medium: Thunderbird. Give us killer good looks and powerful engines in 4-seat coupe and convertible bodystyles.
Large: Lincoln Continental: See 2005 concept. Now tone down the retro a bit, modernize the look, and we may have a proper flagship here.
(Perhaps add a full size Ford to the lineup to replace the Crown Vic? Galaxie/Falcon, anyone?)
Unfortunately post-daydream, I highly doubt the ‘personal luxury coupe’ segment will ever come back to the volumes of the 80’s. But then I think Nissan/Infiniti seem to be making a similar strategy work with the 350Z/G35 sedan & coupe platform and I wonder: Why Not Ford?.
That’s a “thoroughly modern package”? It looks like a retarded frog with braces.
I think a lot of us would like the 1989-1997 T-Bird back.
The problem is that once again Ford B*tched and moaned about how the IRS and the platform were too expensive (NOT PROFITABLE ENOUGH).
…………..this coming from a company that has engerinned a IRS for its SUVs, to make them handle more car like!!!!!!!!
“whatdoiknow1
Not for nothing but a Lincoln MarkV, one of the ugliest, tackiest cars ever made was a very popular car in the late 1970s, but do you want one today? Should Ford make a retro Mark V for the remaining leisure-suit hold-outs? ”
Yes please.
i don’t like the way it looks, it shoulda had fins like the ‘57
I tried to sit in one of these once. It was very cramped inside. I think it’s only claim to fame is that whatsherface drove one in the Sopranos.
As someone mentioned above, I saw these things lingering on lots for eons after it was out of production. It was the Crossfire of it’s era.
The car was just plain… er, well, plain!
You’d expect touches of chrome here and there, just enough to make it dressed, but not overdressed.
The lackluster interior could have been from a Focus, too.
The car looked like it “needed” something, and at 35k+, that’s crap.
Even the Crossfire had more “panache” than the T-Bird (Damn W/Faint Praise)
The original 2-seat Thunderbirds adopted the same long-hood, short rear deck proportions of the then contemporary Jaguar XK-120, but incorporating styling elements from Ford’s own mainstream sedans of the time, to stunning effect.
This retro-mobile failed to recapture the same long-hood, short rear deck proportions of the original. The hood was too short, the rear deck too long, and the overall general proportions suggested the Chrysler Sebring convertible. If the car had a rear seat it might have worked.
All of the nice retro details picked up from the original Thunderbird: the mesh grill pattern, the single round headlamps and taillamps, the hood scoop, the side grills on the front fenders, were not enough to make up for the awkward-looking proportions. The cheap interior fittings and dubious quality made a bad car worse.
It was ugly.
whatdoiknow1: Not for nothing but a Lincoln MarkV, one of the ugliest, tackiest cars ever made was a very popular car in the late 1970s, but do you want one today? Should Ford make a retro Mark V for the remaining leisure-suit hold-outs?
Sorry, but the Mark V was stunning. Both it and its mini-Mark styled Thunderbird cousin sold better in those years than any other car with those legendary names. Judging by the price of mint-condition Mark Vs and Disco-chickens on eBay and the general age demographics of people who remember 70s cars (i.e. more are alive than those who remember the 50s), remaking these “classics” makes much more business sense than the retro-chicken we have here.
Put another way: I’d hit it.
I thought this was a beautiful car when it came out… until I saw one in a showroom. It has the cheap plasic to be sure and the reviews weren’t that great at the time either. Why someone can’t make a car that looks this good with a great fit, finish, powertrain etc I don’t know. Most cars built today have no style, this did but you need substance also for this much money.
The car was just plain… er, well, plain!
That’s my thoughts too — just nothing really great about the car in any way. The premium the Ford dealers were charging for the first Thunderbirds didn’t last long.
As the owner (for the last ten years) of a 1992 Thunderbird, I’d love to see the return of the affordable midsize RWD coupe. But it’s not going to happen. Of course, the Mustang is almost that big these days – but having test-driven a current V6 Mustang, I think I’ll stick with the old T-Bird.
During the preproduction hype about the retro-T, one of the ladies I work with was crazy about it. She had pictures and calendars and… plans to buy one.
She seemed like the perfect customer for the car – mid-50’s successful female with an eye for a pretty convertible and the money to indulge herself.
However, when the car actually appeared, the pictures came down. The love affair ended with a trip to the dealership. Too expensive and too plain and ugly in person. She ended up in a Lexus.
Personally, I’ve always thought the best analogy for the old T-Bird and the new was the old Elvis compared to the new Elvis aafter he’d gained 100 pounds.
Ford had an opportunity to revive the Thunderbird as a 2 passanger luxury coupe/convertible and totally blew it. The body style is totally bland with a capitol “B” and actually looks old, not retro. They took a few styling ques from the original but toned them down instead of exagerating them. Maybe the clay model sat under hot lights too long and melted into a lump. The car doesn’t reflect sportiness or luxury. The crap interior and performance didn’t help either. Another thing I’ve noticed is that most of the paint colors are downright ugly. I was excited to hear this car was coming out and extreamly disappointed with the result.
Obviously, greedy dealers aren’t the only ones who felt that the retro-Birds were worth more than people were actually willing to pay for them.
Just for kicks, I decided to check out the 2002 to 2005 Thunderbirds listed on eBay. I immediately thought, “Some of these owners must be in la-la land,” as I saw dozens listed over $20k. C’mon, even a three- to five-year-old Benz or BMW is hard pressed to fetch over 50% of original MSRP!
So to test my hunch, I next checked out the completed auctions on eBay for 2002 to 2005 Thunderbirds. Guess what? Of the 99 ‘birds with auctions that ended in the last 30 days, only 11 actually sold.
I have no idea how this compares to other makes and models, but it seems as though people are hanging onto the hope that these cars are already collectible. Yeah, right. First, the car has to be somewhat desirable, and secondly, somewhat rare. I’m not sure the ‘Bird passes either test.
I think Ford’s fatal mistake was shifting to a two seater. The LS platform was simply too big and fat to be suitable for a two seater. If this car had used Mazda’s sports car platform it would have had more of a chance to succeed. But even then the market would have been limited.
Ironically, the T-Bird’s wheelbase was long enough for Ford to have pulled back the roofline and offered a four seater harkening back to the classic 1958-66 era designs. That may have had a bit less sex appeal, but it also might have significantly broadened the car’s market. Here history is instructive. Ford had a pretty darn good reason for abandoning the original two-seater T-Bird: It didn’t sell very well. (Alas.)