Vote for next Thunderbird!

[Watchdevil]

Just thought it would be interesting to see what type of Tbird everyone would like to see happen...

 

Chrysler is preparing a FOUR DOOR COUPE called the Nassau for NAIAS.

 

Is Ford gonna let Chrysler beat them to the punch again and miss another opportunity?

Edited November 23, 2006 by Watchdevil

[Watchdevil]

I'll have to admit... The Solstice and Sky made me forget all about back seats... Too bad Ford will never do like GM did and make a Kappa-like platform. If they did it would end up costing ten times the amount. Ah but they are masters at borrowing Mazda platforms... Just borrow the Miata's....

[Blueblood]

I'll have to admit... The Solstice and Sky made me forget all about back seats... Too bad Ford will never do like GM did and make a Kappa-like platform. If they did it would end up costing ten times the amount. Ah but they are masters at borrowing Mazda platforms... Just borrow the Miata's....

 

If ford made a Solstice/Sky competitor it would weigh 4500lbs. Be 4 seconds slower to 60, have non-defeatable traction control, have brakes that barely work, and look like it was styled by the blind, and have the same interior as the Focus to save money..

[calypsocoral]

Just thought it would be interesting to see what type of Tbird everyone would like to see happen...

 

Chrysler is preparing a FOUR DOOR COUPE called the Nassau for NAIAS.

 

Is Ford gonna let Chrysler beat them to the punch again and miss another opportunity?

 

The original Thunderbird was designed to compete against the Corvette. Since then, the T-bird became a lumbering land yacht, and the Corvette is unobtainable by anyone who makes less than a doctor or lawyer.

 

There was a certain car magazine this past month (either Road & Track, or Automobile, can't remember which one) that described the Saturn Sky as the new Corvette, and I couldn't agree more.

 

Let's give the T-bird one last chance to show what it can be-- what it originally was. Make a roadster, with a coupe to be introduced later, powered by the 2.3L DISI Turbo, give it some semblance of useable trunk space (something the Solstice and Sky severely lack), and market it around $26K. At least a few "retro" touches would be nice, but keeping the car generally-modern in appearance would be a good idea.

 

There should be one word-- and ONLY one word-- to describe the character of this car: "Responsive"!

[J2D]

When you say large 2-door coupe/convertible. are you talking about the size and shape of the late Ford Forty-nine Concept? or 4-door look of the 427?

[ehaase]

Make a roadster, with a coupe to be introduced later, powered by the 2.3L DISI Turbo, give it some semblance of useable trunk space (something the Solstice and Sky severely lack), and market it around $26K. At least a few "retro" touches would be nice, but keeping the car generally-modern in appearance would be a good idea.

 

There should be one word-- and ONLY one word-- to describe the character of this car: "Responsive"!

The one word to describe such a car is money loser. Well, that's two words. Ford should use the Thunderbird name on a new large RWD flagship sedan for Ford division that would replace the Panthers and the 500 and that can make a lot of money.

[ZanatWork]

If ford made a Solstice/Sky competitor it would weigh 4500lbs. Be 4 seconds slower to 60, have non-defeatable traction control, have brakes that barely work, and look like it was styled by the blind, and have the same interior as the Focus to save money..

 

 

So, you're what's called a "pillowbiter", right?

 

Thanks for playing...come back after you have a good cry.

 

Okay...so...about the T-Bird...Ford should go back to what made the T-Bird most successful: 4 seats, two doors, available as hardtop or convertible, rear drive, V8.

 

1958 has all the lessons Ford needs.

[66fairlane]

Okay...so...about the T-Bird...Ford should go back to what made the T-Bird most successful: 4 seats, two doors, available as hardtop or convertible, rear drive, V8.

 

Thats the thunderbird I want. Don't forget the manual.

[Mark B. Morrow]

The last two catagories were a joke ... Right... Please!!!

[Roadrunner]

The one word to describe such a car is money loser. Well, that's two words. Ford should use the Thunderbird name on a new large RWD flagship sedan for Ford division that would replace the Panthers and the 500 and that can make a lot of money.

 

No... a large flagship sedan never was what the Thunderbird was meant to be in the first place. People would see the name as polluted.

 

I say make it a Fusion coupe -- the sizing would be right and I can easily see a 2-door roofline being easily grafted on.

[RichardJensen]

I vote for a midsize RWD sedan based on stretched Mustang mechanicals.

 

The personal coupe market is dead. You ain't gonna bring it back by making them again.

[ehaase]

I say make it a Fusion coupe -- the sizing would be right and I can easily see a 2-door roofline being easily grafted on.

No front wheel drive Thunderbirds, ever.

 

The best alternative is a large or midsize stylish, RWD, powerful, flagship sedan for Ford. Interest in coupes is just too small now.

[J-150]

Don't forget the manual.

 

 

 

it's in the glovebox

[jpd80]

How about next AUS Falcon (4-door) and T'bird (2-door coupe) share same platform .

Give the made in USA versions the 427 concept style front end.

Edited November 23, 2006 by jpd80

[Edstock]

I'd like to see a 2dr on a Mustang chassis with about a 3-4 inch wheelbase stretch, and minimal front overhang. If you need 4 doors, you don't need a Thunderbird. Get an AWD Z, with whatever performance package that will probably be available within the next 24 months, like an HO 3.5.

 

Avoiding 4 doors makes the chassis much, much simpler. One reason a 4" wheelbase stretch is a good idea is that it will allow a proportionally larger rear overhang — more space behind the rear seats for the convertible mechanism. Go for the gusto with the wheelbase — it allows the front seats to be moved 2" farther back from the windshield, and it allows more creativity with the 'dash', plus 2" more rear legroom.

 

What should the T-Bird styling cues be? Any retro cues, and if so, from what 'Bird? '58? '61? '66? '83? Something different?

 

IMHO. the common style element in the first 3 'Birds is the roof.

 

The old 4dr 'Birds sucked. But, would an RX-8 type of 4dr be OK?

[wescoent]

Ford is just throwing good money after bad by abandoning this legendary nameplate. For the 4 years I've driven a Thunderbird, I've heard nothing but good stories and good experiences that people have had with their Thunderbirds.

 

As for the next one, start with the Mustang chassis, and building me a Ford version of this vehicle:

 

 

4 comfortable seats, 3.5L V6 and 4.6L V8 right out of the Mustang, lots of fun available equipment, priced alongside the Ford Five Hundred dollar for dollar. The coupe market is very soft, but create a financially viable vehicle to sell about 20,000 units per year, and watch the dollars roll in.

[Blueblood]

So, you're what's called a "pillowbiter", right?

 

Thanks for playing...come back after you have a good cry.

 

Okay...so...about the T-Bird...Ford should go back to what made the T-Bird most successful: 4 seats, two doors, available as hardtop or convertible, rear drive, V8.

 

1958 has all the lessons Ford needs.

 

 

We're talking about cars, and your off in some perverted world of yours, STFU if you have nothing to offer but your sick fantasies moron.

[jlsaylor]

I'm going with "none of the above".

 

What I'd like to see is a two-door retractable hartop based on an updated and shortened version of the current Mustang's D2C platform. This should absolutely employ a version of the Control Blade IRS D2C was initially intended to use (frankly the next Mustang should employ this as well, as an option if nothing else) with a wheelbase of about 102 inches much like the original Thunderbird.

 

Given the Mustang's use of twin cockipt interior styling, which also happens to be appropriate for a T-Bird, the above could employ a higher-end version of the same which could share some major components, such as the dash and console, with future upmarket Mustangs (think Shelby) allowing greater variety in the Mustang lineup and an appropriate interior for a T-Bird while still producing components in good quantity. Of course there should be differences, with possibilities being shuttle panels which cover the radio, etc when not in use as seen on cars like the SC430.

 

Styling should be strictly long-hood short deck avoiding the disaster that was the most recent Bird entirely in this regard. Look at the proportions of cars like the current Maserati roadster or the Mercedes SL and you have the idea (ironic since many of these cars owe something to the original Bird stylistically...go figure) For power, a 5.0L SOHC Boss family V-8 offering ~360hp seems like a good choice for standard propulsion. Upmarket models could share propulsion with hi-po Mustangs.

 

Lastly make certain that the car is well thought out employing great parts which already exist wherever possible. The GT500's superb steering rack is but one example of this. Give this car a base price similar to an entry level Vette and it should have distinct advantage given it's standard rht and, what should be, a much better executed and appointed interior. Keep production estimates realistic and you have everything the last T-Bird should have been but wasn't. And if I had to offer a guess this seems more like an ambitious competitor to the Z3 and SLK, offering more power and better room than those cars offer for similar or less money, than anything described in the poll.

 

That said, I too would love to see the return of a large, rwd coupe to the Ford line. But, I think a better name waits in the wings for this car then Thunderbird.....I'd pick the Galaxie moniker myself. I'd also make it upscale enough (think Chrysler 300C and about 30k or so base) that it wouldn't employ a V-6 in any trim level. I wouldn't leave those wanting more affordable, truly four place coupes out in the cold however. If it were up to me I'd occupy the market a V-6 powered Galaxie would occupy with a Fusion Coupeand a revived Mercury Cougar.

Edited November 24, 2006 by jlsaylor

[Roadrunner]

No front wheel drive Thunderbirds, ever.

 

Excellent point. I didn't think of the drivetrain difference.

 

 

The old 4dr 'Birds sucked.

 

When was that?

[Watchdevil]

When you say large 2-door coupe/convertible. are you talking about the size and shape of the late Ford Forty-nine Concept? or 4-door look of the 427?

 

Not anything style specific... I mean for it to be larger than a Mustang but not big like a Crown Vic. I would say Charger and Zeta Impala sized.

 

It would be nice if the next Thunderbird look like a 427 because in coupe form it looks like a blend of the 1977-79 and 1983-88 but with modernized styling. To me the coupe based 427 looks like a Thunderbird that could have evolved from those older models.

 

Otherwise I would be open to some other interpetation of a large Thunderbird coupe/convertible as long as you knew it was a Thunderbird from a mile away.

[Watchdevil]

The original Thunderbird was designed to compete against the Corvette. Since then, the T-bird became a lumbering land yacht, and the Corvette is unobtainable by anyone who makes less than a doctor or lawyer.

 

There was a certain car magazine this past month (either Road & Track, or Automobile, can't remember which one) that described the Saturn Sky as the new Corvette, and I couldn't agree more.

 

I'll agree with that. When I first saw the Saturn Sky I said to myself that is what the Corvette should be, not some unafforable heavy overpowered supercar. Certainly a car the size of a Saturn Sky configured properly could have a V8 and great performance without looking so fat assed. The Corvette now looks like it is only a stretched and skewed version of the 1984 model and it's styling reflects that. I used to love Corvette but I find the styling as is uninteresting, super V8 performance or not.

 

Let's give the T-bird one last chance to show what it can be-- what it originally was. Make a roadster, with a coupe to be introduced later, powered by the 2.3L DISI Turbo, give it some semblance of useable trunk space (something the Solstice and Sky severely lack), and market it around $26K. At least a few "retro" touches would be nice, but keeping the car generally-modern in appearance would be a good idea.

 

I'll agree that would be an acceptable way to go with the Thunderbird. It was a competitor to the ORIGINAL Corvette but I don't believe it should be a competitor to the current Corvette. Ford has done the super car thing with the GT and it was just a rich man's toy. The Thunderbird should be more obtainable than that, and should not be shrouded in so much exclusitivity and pretention.

 

I have a book on the 2002 Thunderbird where it show design development and they actually came up with a nicer redering than what was used. The main thing about it was it had original T-bird heritage but there was detail that made it look edgier in the right places without looking too soft like the production model. It had round lights "tunneling" from front to back. Also, the redering has a much shorter rear deck and I think that helps with the proportions looking compact enough to be balanced and look like a true sports car.

 

If Ford would do another 2-seat roadster right and make it afforable, then I would sacrifice the desire for a large 2-door coupe/convertible and let a possible large coupe go to the Fusion or a RWD variant of a 427-like sedan.

 

 

Also, there is a difference in wanting a Mustang Convertible and a small two seat roadster. I believe there is a market for both because they have two different personalities and with the Thunderbird name it will have it's own mystique and enthusiast following.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Watchdevil

[Watchdevil]

Ford is just throwing good money after bad by abandoning this legendary nameplate. For the 4 years I've driven a Thunderbird, I've heard nothing but good stories and good experiences that people have had with their Thunderbirds.

 

As for the next one, start with the Mustang chassis, and building me a Ford version of this vehicle:

 

 

4 comfortable seats, 3.5L V6 and 4.6L V8 right out of the Mustang, lots of fun available equipment, priced alongside the Ford Five Hundred dollar for dollar. The coupe market is very soft, but create a financially viable vehicle to sell about 20,000 units per year, and watch the dollars roll in.

 

I don't want the next Tbird to be an import pretender in styling. This has been a bad formula for Ford as evidenced by the Lincoln LS which looked like a Mitsubishi Galant (more than a BMW), The Five Hundred looking like a Passat and the upcoming MKS which looks like an Acura and Hyundai XG500 grafted together.

 

The 1989-96 was uncomfortably close to a BMW 8 series coupe in side profile with the roof shape, sides too slab and large quarter windows. Fortunately, that Thunderbird was saved by the front and rear styling which were clearly heritage inspired.

[Watchdevil]

Excellent point. I didn't think of the drivetrain difference.

When was that?

1967-68... and maybe 69 I forgot off the top of my head. Reason it never sold was it was too close in size and style as the LTD which was much cheaper.

 

I vote for a midsize RWD sedan based on stretched Mustang mechanicals.

 

The personal coupe market is dead. You ain't gonna bring it back by making them again.

 

I definitely vote for a RWD sedan, Thunderbird name or not.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Watchdevil

[J-150]

1967-68... and maybe 69 I forgot off the top of my head. Reason it never sold was it was too close in size and style as the LTD which was much cheaper.

.

 

 

 

and it was ugly

[Ovaltine]

Here's a pic of a 'Bird that's VERY close in appearance to my first car.

 

 

Mine was dark red and had a white roof. It also had the cooler turbine-style wheel covers and cornering lamps.

 

It had a 429 cid, with a 4-bbl and dual exhaust.

 

Man... was that car a RIDE! And once rolling, could it FLY!

 

It only got 10mpg though.... whether I babied it or beat it. B) I WASN'T unhappy about the

better gas mileage that came along with my SECOND car.

 

-Ovaltine

Edited November 26, 2006 by Ovaltine