Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

[My Raven]

Read the comments below ...
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAadcuv_F0I
.
Me thinks "AdmiralJimmy" has a case of the green eye ...

[MerlotBlue]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

Eh,........if not for varying opinion we'd all be driving the exact same car.

As for his opinion?

Told me all I needed to read when he said he'd take, "Dad's '76 with the 460"

I don't care how deeply you inhale the Ford or T-Bird KOOL AID........


A 1976 T-Bird with a 460cu inch engine is the very EPITOME of a HORRIBLE car not even capable as a good boat anchor. (Fords all pretty much rusted away at the first hint of moisture back then) Lousy performance, no power, bad gas mileage, and really........... new T-Birds are ugly in his opinion?

I'm supposed to take that comment seriously from a fan of a mega- tonnage, land yacht that really could compete, along with so many other American cars of the period, for the title of "worst and ugliest car ever built"? The 1970s were a great time for many reasons but the mid-late 70s not so much for cars.......pretty much the low point for all of Detroit's efforts.

Really......

[Ray]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

Told me all I needed to read when he said he'd take, "Dad's '76 with the 460"
I don't care how deeply you inhale the Ford or T-Bird KOOL AID........
A 1976 T-Bird with a 460cu inch engine is the very EPITOME of a HORRIBLE car not even capable as a good boat anchor. (Fords all pretty much rusted away at the first hint of moisture back then) Lousy performance, no power, bad gas mileage, and really........... new T-Birds are ugly in his opinion?
I'm supposed to take that comment seriously from a fan of a mega- tonnage, land yacht that really could compete for the title of "worst car Ford ever built?"
Really?

Hmmm.....I certainly disagree with this. I had a '74 and a '76 Bird, and I rank them with two of the best cars I ever owned. They were extremely comfortable, powerful, and trouble free. I live in Illinois, and neither car rusted. The gas mileage wasn't that much worse than what I get in my 2003, and I certainly can't claim my 2003 to have been trouble free.

[NRALifer]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

x

[FritsB]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

Looking at the end the commercial it made me wonder if Ford -and the agency that made the commercial- realize that the outcome of their frase ´Let the stories begin..´ is all captured within TBN.

[Daktari]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

Hi there,

The reason why we ended up buying a retro bird is because it is a throwback to the original two seater models of the 50's. It's kind of got that same appeal and character but with more modern technology and more comfort. Personally, there is not one of the four seater birds that I find attractive to look at and I think they did start to get too big.
Some of them are downright ugly I think.

That's just me though...

Gordon.

[007Cruiser]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

Hmmm.....I certainly disagree with this. I had a '74 and a '76 Bird, and I rank them with two of the best cars I ever owned. They were extremely comfortable, powerful, and trouble free. I live in Illinois, and neither car rusted. The gas mileage wasn't that much worse than what I get in my 2003, and I certainly can't claim my 2003 to have been trouble free.

Ray...I agree with everything except the gas mileage. My '75 (with zero rust) gets about 10-12 mpg. It also gets lots of smiles and "thumbs ups" when seen on the road.

[SR71Blackbird]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

I had a 77 that got 22 highway and loved that car so much I drove that car untill I wore it out at 250K, never had the heads off, no trouble except logic box every 50K. Later owned an 85 after awesome Bill won Daytona, really liked that one too.
As far as the retro goes I've been a Ford guy forever and was always upset with the lack of a two seat roadster when the retro came out I just had to have one. 400 horse power and a 6 speed would have been nice but all in all I love this car and see another 77 relationship comming.

[lmartun]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

...400 horse power and a 6 speed would have been nice but all in all I love this car...

400hp would have been sweet, love my 280hp- 50th nonetheless.

lm

[Welker]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

My girl friend's father had a '55 in '55 and he let us drive it around all the time. I was in college at the time and in love with the girl and the car. I bought a '55 in '65 and had it sort of restored. It was a terrible car with a six volt electrical system that never failed to fail on the third attempt to start. I was glad to get rid of it. I have noticed an odd thing about all the old Birds from the 50's and early 60's and that is that the people in them look like they don't fit. The cars for the most part look great but the people driving and riding look outsized and too tall. The retro birds seat the driver and passenger much lower and the car seems to fit them.

[MerlotBlue]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

Seems I ruffled some "bird" feathers with my own assessment of the those mid-70s Thunderbirds.

Sorry guys. Forgot where I was for a moment......... should have known there are probably more than a few people who bought Thunderbirds during what I personally consider to be the DARK YEARS.......not just for the T-Bird and Ford but Detroit and the automotive industry in general.

If you don't remember 1970s era Fords as "rust buckets" you probably didn't live in the North-east as I did.......I'll never forget the sound, tire smoke and general disbelief my father expressed when we pulled over in our 1976 Country Squire wagon on the way to a hockey game in 1979.

The spare tire lived in a compartment behind the rear wheel. Rust on the bottom of the fender was so bad on this 3 year old Ford that the tire literally fell through and was skidding along the pavement as we pulled over. This was a typical "rusty ford owner" experience back in the day if you lived where they salted roads in the winter.

As for power?

At 460cu inches..........smog controlled..........low compression.......massive weight.........and just generally poorly put together ....Big Fords just like so many other cars from the mid to late 70s are IMO the VERY WORST ever built.........and I'm sorry........I hate to sound to sceptical.......but if your VERY heavy mid 70s T-Bird with that highly inefficient engine of immense cubic inch displacement and 1:1 final drive transmission got approximately the same gas mileage as your newer Retro Bird........WOW.........beats me how you managed that.

Again I apologize to those who have fond memories, sanitized of the bad stuff, by the passage of time.

My original assessment stands anyway though. I've worked on enough 1975-80 era Fords and GM cars both to know just how truly horrible performance was in terms of both power and MPG. These were the earliest days of Government mandates on pollution standards and tail pipe emmisions........Detroit struggled mightily with the new regs early on and the FIRST casualty was power and mpg. :(

[FUN X 3]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

400 horse power and a 6 speed would have been nice

If this were the case, the broken wings threads would have a lot more cars that met an early demise, and the ones still on the road would be even more rare. Just 252 hp has almost gotten me into big trouble a few times.

[MerlotBlue]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

If this were the case, the broken wings threads would have a lot more cars that met an early demise, and the ones still on the road would be even more rare. Just 252 hp has almost gotten me into big trouble a few times.

Nah, you'd have been "OK".


Unlike when we were kids in the 1970s.......some of the forum members are probably snickering at that thought........... and we "hot rodded" cars that had no business exceeding the speed limits Ford would have done a better job of "Balancing" power and control.

If the Retro-Birds had been offered up with as much as 400HP or even more and I think you'd have gotten a very different car in terms of a lot more than just power. We'd have gotten a car that wouldn't have been anywhere near as comfortable a "cruiser".

Beefier spring rates, stiffer shocks, big fat sway bars would be just the beginning leaving you with a far more aggressive sport car feel. A great deal of comfort would have been lost.

Some people might have cheered a T-Bird of that description but I'm not sure that for every performance oriented buyer you'd have attracted.....you wouldn't have lost a buyer hoping for the "cruiser" in keeping with those original T-Birds that inspired this car.

Chevrolet offers a Corvette that meets the description already and it would have been a very tall order for Ford to offer up a T-Bird that could have competed directly in that segment.

I like the T-Bird we got.......MAYBE it could have used a few more ponies.........but get too carried away and the car would lose it's unique balance between comfort and adequate power, IMO.

I think Ford got this car just about exactly right.

[Dallasblackbird]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

MERLOTBLUE:

I have been a Ford guy since I was a kid in the mid 60s. My 03 Bird is the first Ford I've owned since my 60 Starliner. (Go figure) Anyway, I've always been a car nut and I look at the 60s and 70s Detroit (Ford included) cars at meets and shows today, and just shake my head.

The bar for acceptability was so low in those days. Even in show car condition they are terrible in the fit and finish department.
Rust problems? Reminds me of the time when I would drive my Corvair and toss my empty beer cans through the rusted floor pan rather than out the window.

Those were the good old days.

[MerlotBlue]

Re: Another Retro v. Early Bird Debate ...

MERLOTBLUE:

I have been a Ford guy since I was a kid in the mid 60s. My 03 Bird is the first Ford I've owned since my 60 Starliner. (Go figure) Anyway, I've always been a car nut and I look at the 60s and 70s Detroit (Ford included) cars at meets and shows today, and just shake my head.

The bar for acceptability was so low in those days. Even in show car condition they are terrible in the fit and finish department.
Rust problems? Reminds me of the time when I would drive my Corvair and toss my empty beer cans through the rusted floor pan rather than out the window.

Those were the good old days.

Oh, WOW!!

Now you hit me........


My history with Corvairs is extensive. .......... and you're right .........TERRIBLE cars despite the idea they represented so many "firsts" for Detroit.



I had a pretty smooth '66 Corsa Convertible in the late 70s. Turbo charged and probably would be worth something to a collector today ......but memories are less "Fuzzy and warm".

I remember all to well how the car had no heat because the "o" rings around the push rod tubes in the horizontal air cooled six leaked within a year of changing 'em out every-time.

I remember losing valve seats because the turbo motor would run too hot for the design.


.....and then there was the side draft carb that would puke back gasoline into the air cleaner .......started 2 fires that never cost me the car but certainly taught me the value of a fire extinguisher on hand at all times.

Still, I do like a lot of the Chrome bumper cars from the very early 70s and the 1960s.........despite any short comings.........it's those mid-70s to late 80s cars you can keep as far as I'm concerned. Nearly nothing to like in the bunch of 'em with but a very few notable exceptions.

To throw a bone to the T-Bird Crowd?

The T-Bird Super Coupes and their competition the Grand National Buicks were and are still pretty cool especially given the limitations of the period they came from.