The original Ford Thunderbird vs the Failed Retro Bird... WHAT WENT WRONG?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ส.ค. 2022
- New Hoovie's Garage Countach T-shirts AND $5 STICKERS here: hooviesgarage.com/products/ho...
FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM! / the_real_hoovies_garage
Follow me on Twitter! twitter.com/hooviesgarage
Follow me on Facebook! / - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
I think this episode perfectly demonstrates why Bob has been a used car dealer for decades and Hoovie only lasted a couple of years.
Absolutely. Everything Bob says has salesman all over it. It's like when the car accelerates mildly and Bob falls back in his seat while Hoovie is sitting normally.
Because hoovie is honest ?
@@quinnjim its natural. Passenger always “feels” more. Driver has steering wheel to hold on 🙄
Idk if you ever drive manual, but if you do, notice something. Look at your passenger when you press the clutch. Their head will tilt, just from clutching, not even braking. You wont even notice change in the speed of the car, but observe your passenger.
@@xiukn8 well said
Because Hoovie says, Anyone who wants a retro-bird is DEAD!
When these were first introduced, the dealer in my area put a $10K markup on them (and, of course, the one in the showroom was roped off). When Ford discontinued them a few years later, they still had a few collecting dust in the back of the lot - with a $7500 rebate on the hood.
Same thing here in my area.
Similar situation with our closest small town dealer. I assume that the dealer was only allocated one and they placed it in their showroom (one car showroom) with some type of markup. There it sat I'm sure for at least a year or so. Don't know what finally happened to it, but assume it sold at MSRP or below.
Underwhelming underprefoming marshmallow of a car. Just like the SSR
By the time these were in production the MSRP was almost $10k over projected price.
The moral to the story is to buy the last one not the first one.
The Thunderbird retro effort deserved more success than it enjoyed.
As a 67 year old subscriber to your channel , I want to thank you for all the “ old people “ shots you took to a whole generation of people who actually have the financial means to buy the cars you guys want to sell .
For anyone wondering, I’m pretty sure the thick dark lines appearing on camera are a strobing affect caused by the occasional synchronization of the camera shutter and the LED lights in the warehouse. It’s the same effect as looking at an old CRT TV through a camera.
I find entertainment in that we've come round full circle to 60-yr old tv quality caused by effects between modern tech.
The sharp shadows led chips throw refuse to blend and merge.
It’s the polarized lenses
Slightly related to this effect, in old westerns, speeding stagecoach and other wheels could appear to be slowly rotating backward, forward, or even briefly standing still, depending on where each spoke was in relation to the camera running at 24 frames per second.
The retro birds are amazing very underated and very misunderstood my 02 turns heads head.
And people are grabbing them up now.
Actually Ford doesn’t consider the T-Bird a failure. They said from the beginning that they only planned on building it for 3-4 years. It was based on the Lincoln LS platform from Jaguar, which was expensive to build and this was the last gasp of that platform. Not a great car - kind of ‘floppy’ - and it was too expensive, and had a chintzy interior, but they’ve held their value really well and are nice cars overall.
Holding their value well is unfortunate, otherwise I might get one and see if a manual swap would work.
I think they were a bit expensive for what they were. However, they didn't deserve the hate they got. It's unfortunate the market can't support somewhat sporty midsized cars.
That retro T-Bird still looks so good after all these years.
How do you make a little 2 seater car that weighs 3900 lbs.?
@@BuzzLOLOL If they cut 500 pounds off the car and/or added 50 HP to the engine, the demand would have been insane.
@@BuzzLOLOL The 'government' doesn't let any lightweight cars get sold in America anymore. Part of the reason I snagged a 1989 MR2 S/C. The same car would weigh 1000lb. more now.
@@BuzzLOLOL extra bracing cowl struts X frame.All result in less flex in the body and less cowl shake when pushed hard. Added weight is not really noticed.
@@BuzzLOLOL It is completely made out of metal with real metal bumpers and a full steel chassis. As it also has a V-8 and is Rear-Wheel-Drive.
Love how Bob sells the acceleration. You'd think he was in a supercar based upon his reactions lol.
He needs a toupe which flies off in the wind.
ik right and i thought i just saw that lol
Clearly the car was accelerating harder on Bob's side.
I have driven them. They accelerate smoothly and very fast.
My dad has a 62 thunderbird sports roadster that my grandfather purchased in 62 for my grandmother…crazy story that it sold from the family in 1997…we just got it back in 2021 and about 3 weeks later it was stolen from our garage…recovered a week later and all is good! Back with us.
The 62 convertible w/ the tonneau covers & Kelsey Hayes wire wheels was such a cool car.
You and Bob taking a drive and talking about a car was a fun format. More, please!!
You two fellas could do a whole series going out crusing cars. This is great, you guys are great together in this.
"Nothing new is as exciting as the original."
Never have I ever heard truer words.
I think the new Challengers are more exciting than the original.
Yeah, hard disagree.
Apart from the Nissan Figaro this is my favourite retro reissue car.
I really like this format of you an Bob just cruising and talking about a car.
It is kinda like a giant Figaro.
Same
Agreed. This format of Bob and Tyler works really well. No script, no fake banter. Would love to see them do more together.
Do more side by sides with different year models! Loved this episode!
agree!
I love the videos when Hoovie features Bob. Super charismatic, awesome guy with great stories.
'57 Thunderbird with the 312/single four-barrel carb had 245 hp, 270 hp with two 4-barrels, and 300 with the supercharged version. And this thing needs a transmission rebuild.
Needs more than a 3 speed for sure.
I drove a friend's 56 T-Bird....it handles like a rather ponderous, full size car...power was just OK...I was not impressed.
The new one starts every day, never vapor-locks, has AC, and doesn't drive like a roofless mail truck. Just what a 70-year-old retiree wants!
@@aaroncostello8812 So you're insulting roofless mail trucks? C'mon man.
@@curbozerboomer1773 Now drive a 56 Cadillac.
I would really like to watch a video where Tyler told some crazy customer experiences while doing the dealership business.
That would be a great vinwiki
Me too cuz hes got that face that just says "punch me"
I am sure I watched a video about that, was it on VinWiki?
He and ed should do a podcast, 'tales from the car lot'. They probably both have hilarious stories but from different sides of the spectrum.
Yep. VinWiki.
Working at a tier 2, our traveling quality rep ordered one on the retros as a retirement gift for himself. He had a great relationship with the plant building it. The plant found the order and delayed delivery a couple weeks while the ran it around to every heavy repair bay, and quality hold lot location nearby. They took pictures with it at each stop with people that worked with him over the years and made a farewell book for him. They also did several upgrades to basic vehicle, so he ended up with a unique vehicle to retire with.
That's a great story
"Once you do a retro you can't evolve it," he says while standing in front of the evolved-retro Ford Mustang.
Exactly
Mustangs have kind of always looked alike.
@@negativeindustrial The 2005 mustang cut any hint of the fox body out of it's styling.
@@gail_blue
It did, 100%. The Fox body still had the basic silhouette of the first generation but had strayed exceptionally far in the details by 2004. My mother owned a 1999 GT and a good friend of mine bought the 2005 GT very early. I remember that return to original form well and I was happy to see it.
Still, when you see a Mustang of any year, there isn’t any mistaking it for anything else. Much like Porsche or Miatas.
@@negativeindustrial You can mistake a '79 stang for a Mercury Capri
you two need to do a podcast or a weekly drive show together showing off interesting cars
That way Bob could sell hoovie a car a week!
Love the vintage, not so keen on the retro, but they did make a good effort at Getting the essence of the original.
they got the appearance of the original, everything else about the car is a ford taurus engine and suspension.
keep in mind a thunderbird was a corvette competitor originally.
6:55 I still remember Dan Tanna driving his '57 T bird in Las Vegas. YES I'm old 😂
I'm liking the change of format! Glad to see you're testing out new things! Just always be yourself.
The whole first fight thing happened to me when I used to work retail sales. So many absolutely insane people out there.
Of course. Just watch protesters.
It happens whenever you’re directly dealing with the public. Doesn’t even need to be retail. Some people are just sick in the head lol.
People just think they can treat you like your less than human
I had my manager and another salesman get into a fist fight on the lot
Al Bundy tried to buy a new Mustang for $5000.00 which was his life savings. He was laughed off the showroom and was bitterly disappointed. But he still had the Dodge.
I love the retro style, I'm still saving for one, they are around 20/25k in my country. Usually garage queens.
I love the look of the old and new Thunderbird
The big difference in the interiors is that, in the 1950s, Ford knew how to do a better job of making cheap materials look expensive, wheres in the 2000s, they just looked cheap.
And Bob has a good point on dead-end retro design - if you get the retro tribute right the first time, there's really nowhere logical to go next for the following generation. BMW fell into that problem with MINI - the first gen new MINI was just about perfect, each subsequent generation has lost the plot a bit by trying to look new, while at the same time still trying to look like 1959, only so many variations you can do on the same template.
Absolutely. My dad had a first gen new mini. Silk green, black top. Beautiful car. The e-throttle didn't work for shit, and stuff kept breaking, but still a beautiful car. Then the style department got bored, and shit got weird. (Agreed on the interior too--old Ford made an interior with style, new Ford knew they were making rental cars.)
@@Darwinpasta You talking about the Austin/Morris Mini? And what is an "E-throttle"?
@@michaelbenardo5695 Nah, the '00s BMW ones. Electric throttle body. The gas pedal is a sensor that gives suggestions to the computer, which then decides how much to open the throttle. It would randomly decide "no throttle for you."
@@Darwinpasta I hate Throttle-by-wire. I hate that delay. My wife's 2010 Toyota Avalon has that, and I can easily beat it, even thou I am an old man. Give me solid throttle linkage. Gives instant response.
@@Darwinpasta So now we have a throttle NAZI? I wonder if it is related to the Soup NAZI on Seinfeld?
I always thought the newer ones looked pretty good. It’s the inside where things get iffy.
@@KS-xo3oh 2000’s interior are miles ahead of the 80’s and 90’s interior
@@KS-xo3oh the Bonneville?
Disagree, the newer ones look like a dead fish out of water on the front end where the old one looks like a cool car.
@@KS-xo3oh They cheaped out there too and unlike the older models their more complicated and expensive to fix. 20 years from now people will just be completely taking the dash out of their newer models
Plastic Paradise ✨✨
"You can sell an old man a young man's car, but you can't sell a young man an old man's car."
That was the issue with this car, no engine upgrades, no stick shift, just a nice cruiser.
It was a perfect car for old people. I bought a convertible WS6 Trans Am with a six speed instead. Never regretted that decision.
The original Thunderbird was never stick shift. Pimps love old man's cars sweetie.
Guess I'm the oddball exception, cause my current daily driver is a Lincoln LS, and I'm 19 🤣
@@RyanRoadReaper I’m with you I have a 2003 thunderbird and got it at 19🤣🤣
At 19 I bought a Rover 75 and at 22 an S-Type Jag so I disagree old man's cars are great 🤣
I needed this today, my grand father passed away 10 years ago today, he was always so proud he and my uncle who also passed away had 2 57 thunderbirds together. Sadly he sold them when my uncle passed away but this brought me some joy
I actually liked the way the new one looked, I know people were disappointed with the engine and the automatic transmission but I like it.
Me too, I took one for a test drive and was pleasantly surprised when I gassed it!
I own one, no complaints! It's GREAT.
old one just looks better. especially the rear end, had more flair. everyone likes big butts.
The original is so gorgeous. The modern one has the same issue as the new Bentley Continental has, they attached hooks to the skin of the face and tightened it thinking it would improve the styling. It didn’t
They probably couldn't do styling like the original. It would hurt CAFE, too many sharp corners which I guess are liability risk, and it's body on frame which they hardly do anymore. With unibody you are constrained because there's no solid frame underneath, plus it's a convertible so further constraints, it has to be fat around the windows, etc.
@@davidquinn9676 I can put it more succinctly. The 'government' ----ed up our cars.
EuroAsian Bob is the GOAT!
Need more vids of Bob, Hoovie, and Wizard all together!
Bob is just a cool dude. Part of the reason of why you are so awesome is because you involve your community in your channel. Keep doing what you're doing and continue lifting your crew!!! More Bob!
I always thought they were cool! Respect for the Thunderbird. 🤗 Edit same feeling I had for the Chevy SSR Glad they made these! 😁
I also
did you also pine for the aztec?
I've always loved the retro Thunderbird and still want one to this day.
only damn thing I would ever drive in mafia 2
15,999
That and a crossfire!
I agree
More power, a bigger V8.
I just love the conversations between these two petrolheads/car salesmen, talking shop and exchanging opinions ;-)
Loved seeing that old t-bird. Brings back memories. I had a friend in HS. He was a senior, I was a junior, both in the same auto shop class. His older brother got drafted and sent to Vietnam, leaving his beloved '56 T-bird with him. Thirteen months later he luckily came home only to find his engine in pieces all over his parents garage floor. We blew it up drag racing. We then wished we would get drafted to escape.
Bob has what most of us car-lovers would consider to be the best job in the world... find and buy great cars, drive them for a bit, and sell them for a profit!
As a owner also of a 2003 ford thunderbird mountain shadow grey crazy enough! Over the last year of ownership I have felt the lack of power and the constant need of taking off the 80 pound hard top. Experiencing some mechanical issues, I haven’t given up. Getting the car with high miles at a somewhat lower piece with the intent to rebuild. I got it at 19 and am hoping for some years to come. :) great video!
I would love to do an engine swap and or at least find a way to revamp the engine to make a bit more power. A lot of money would go into it unfortunately but that’s where you stand at on this platform.
Hard top guys use a pulley system in the garage to remove them.
I'm just happy with the relationship that Tyler and Bob have here. You guys make a great show.
Great episode. OK, I'm from the day. When I graduated HS, these were 10 year old used cars. Good examples were still being drag raced and street raced. So what you need to know is that the 3-speed with OD was the 4-speed for the highway from Ford. Real 4-speed cars did not come out until the 60's for Joe average.
Let's start over. Pull that OD handle out to put it in low range. Now the rear gear means something. Row through the gears. When you hit about 80 MPH in high, push the OD in, back the gas for sec and it'll pop into "4th". You thought that 312 was pulling, and it was not even in low range. Do it again as I explained it'll set you right back in the seat. Easy to get a mid-50's Bird with factory 4:11's and OD. A 312 with 4:11's on bias ply tires (all we had, Wide Ovals had not even appeared yet) is not that easy to hook up. Add cheater slicks and it'll leave very stoutly 😃
I think the retro-bird would have been a sales success if Ford had brought it out 15-20 years earlier. The guys that admired and coveted the original T-bird in the 'fifties had moved into the nursing home and the cemetery by the time the retro-bird came out.
Good point. It's an old person's car but the old people who would have wanted it were too old. What an error !!
Well, I was 45 at the time. Hoovie had things a bit wrong about the age-related appeal.
@@jamesellsworth9673 I'll certainly bow to your judgement on this one - I'm from the UK and didn't even know this retro had ever been produced !
Around here the ancient people all drive pickups, Escalades or Corvette convertables. Corvette is the geriatrics car.
@@rogersmith7396 woah okaaaay. I thought escalades were driven by trigger happy rappers and black drug dealers. It seems I'll never understand that funny americaland place 🤣
I had a 95 Thunderbird V8 in high school, and they were still using the "same" motor in the mustangs in the early 2000s. Thought it was curious they didn't just use the 4.6 in the base model. Then make a performance option with the 32 valve 4.6 that was used in the Marauder around the same time. With the Jag engine and typical modern interior, it just kind of felt like they were building a car they knew almost no one would want. Like the half ass attempt at the GTO around the same year.
Wait that's what caught me off guard... Is this a jag engine!?! I thought it was the mustang?!
The 4.6 mod motor is about 2 inches too wide. Does not fit at all. Ls probably would
@@ec6933 The 4.6 was too wide for the Chassis. It was mostly Jaguar S-type underneath (this also shared it's chassis with the Lincoln LS) so it makes sense that a Jag engine would fit seamlessly, just like in the LS.
The GTO was built in Australia by Holden and was well respected over here, and the Holden looked better than what you guys got over in the U.S...
@@MartinJones123 The GTO looked like an Audi, which isn't _necessarily_ a bad thing, unless you're trying to resurrect the legendary GTO.
youre right. my grandma was a lifelong thunderbird fan and loved the retrobirds. but now well... God rest her soul
Neighbor directly behind me and one house over has the new one, similar color. He is in a wheelchair and that car probably hasn't been started in a few years. I almost wanted to break into the car just to roll up the window. 6 or 7 houses down the block another neighbor has a restored 54 black thunderbird. Simply jaw dropping black and chrome interior. Haven't driven in it yet, but I have seen that one driving around every once in awhile. You can hear it from a couple blocks away. Sounds amazing.
Great video to compare and talk about these Thunderbirds. Always like seeing Bob on the channel!
I was a child when these retro Birds came out. I remember they debuted in James Bond's Die Another Day; Halle Barry's car in Cuba I think? Always loved them! My only complaint was the engine but this wasn't supposed to be a Mustang competitor, it was a GT car and meant to be enjoyed on Sundays with the top down. Still so cool, would love to have one
My grandfather bought one just before he passed. The car drove well, and it was a really nice car. But it wasn't loved and that's a shame.
The retro was a certified hit and having driven them while I was a Tech at Ford, I can tell you they are very fine cars. Pretty darn fast, too. The premium just to get in the Line for one was approx. $10k. Some cases were even higher.
I like the look of the retro styled one
The new thunderbird was cool until I saw it, then it just fell completely flat. Sadly very big bomb for Ford, could have been really cool.
Especially if Ford had offered a manual transmission.
At that time, I bought a Porsche Boxster instead and had more fun. Plus two trunks.
I love your content with EuroAsian Bob…. He gets some really interesting cars..
Hoovie’s Garage is the best TH-cam channel!
It didn't help that they had a major manufacturing coolant issue when they first came out, that delayed their release (easier than a recall)
I never saw anybody under the age of 60 buy one when they were new
They were expensive 20 years ago and 2 seating limited the buyer pool.
Because it was expensive with really cheap interior, and not really sporty styling. Handling like driving a boat. Most people better off with mustang
I still love the newer Thunderbird to this day. I still wanna get one and resto-mod the interior. I feel like it would be perfect with the modern interior
since you obviously dont care about using a gas pedal and a steering wheel which are awful in the thunderbird you should just settle for a dodge neon.
Not every car has to be a race car but it sure would have been nice to an option for a stick and engine upgrades. Likely the cowl shake was too much of an issue for that.
The 5r55e transmission isn't up to the task lol
The AJV8 was actually a pretty good engine, it had similar issues with any other engine at the time. I've had my XJR for 8 years and it has been just as reliable as my Toyota. I've always wanted to R swap a retro bird, just imagine that car with 370 - 400hp, could be fun
It's damn near impossible to do a swap like that because Ford made damn near every electronic thing in these cars connected via CANbus, and there's no aftermarket support for these cars. You can swap them, but you'll lose damn near every electronic feature.
dude a supercharged AJ27S is vastly different from the non supercharged AJ27 ; like 80hp and 100lbft different.
Yeah, I have an x308 xjr too and it’s one of the most reliable V8s you can buy once the timing chain tensioner is sorted
I have an 04 XJR. After 2001 the tensioners were metal, replacing the plastic. Different transmission as the Jag used ZF, Lincoln LS and T-Bird used Ford transmissions I believe.
@@timbrandsoy2721 the zf box as far as the X308 was concerned was only for the base model. XJ/XKR's were equipped with the venerable mercedes 722.6. The zf box was barely rated for the the base model XJ's torque; and I mean barely ; hardly any X308/X150 remains with an original transmission.
Just recently ran across your channel. I really enjoy your videos. Even if I don't really have an interest on the video subject, I watch and enjoy your style, content, truthfulness, etc. You are a natural. Thanks!
I remember when these newer T-birds came out. The auto magazines really criticized them - mostly, if I recall correctly, regarding the structure having too much cowl shake and general flex, and I think all that negative press really had an impact on sales. I have always liked the way the look, though, and I still do when I see them on the road, which is fairly often. That said, the older T-bird is the one I'd have if offered the choice. The more upright windshield and bench seat makes the occupant area look far more inviting and comfortable. That newer car looks tight and uncomfortable with the two of you in there, and the older car did not. The modern addiction to bucket seats and giant consoles makes everything worse.
If you read the car mags EVERY SINGLE convertible car had "cowl shake". I dare you to find a review of any convertible car back then that didn't mention it. They might have said something along the lines of "this car has less cowl shake than earlier generations due to a XX% increase in structural rigidity but we found in our testing that over particularly rough rail road tracks the shake was still pronounced enough to notice by our testers". Anybody that bought (or didn't buy) a car based off old car mag reviews was/is a moron. Every old car was a "flexible flyer" especially if it was American according to the mags at the time. I could write a car review right now based on any car you can think of and make it sound like someone at R&T or MT wrote it just based on what make and model you picked out.
The modern console often conceals crash protection structure that is supposed to protect the lower legs. The safety regs explain why styling is similar and why cameras and sensors are needed.
@@ZboeC5 This is true. "Cowl shake" was well managed on these.
I worked at a Ford dealership when these were introduced. The customers who wanted them really wanted them. The rest would rather have a convertible Mustang.
Test driving them and comparing directly to the Mustang GT convertible at the time proved this was a much sturdier vehicle, especially with the hard top in place. Performance wise it felt about as quick as a GT, but was much more refined, smoother engine.
I think the main downfalls we're price and what to do with the hardtop? Potential customers didn't want to store the top and then the extra price put them in the Mustang instead, both problems solved.
I don't understand the hate they get now. They were a nice driving vehicle. Adequate everywhere, with looks that made people take notice. They were well liked by customers, even those who didn't buy them. I don't think it's aged poorly at all. Great little convertible for the money today, but not the collectable some speculators thought it would be.
@@branemadder It was definitely slower than a Mustang GT but of course it was more refined. The Mustang was still riding around on a chassis the debuted when President Carter was still in office and the Thunderbird was based on a much newer Jaguar S-type. That same platform underpinned the Lincoln LS and the floorpans at least made it into the 2005 Mustang.
@@ZboeC5 Of course they were slower in timed tests, but in 90% of driving they didn't feel slower or lack for power. But for people who go by magazine 0-60 and 1/4 mile test numbers published in magazines, how it actually feels to drive matters little.
I love the last generation of the T-Bird!! I think it's beautiful!! And I'm not old!!! Unless you consider 56 old.....
I never understood the hatred for the final Tbird! Granted, I'm 6'7" and could never fit in it as a regular car and I'm not enamored with the dash but I think it's a great cruiser!
That black plastic dash, and those sunken headlights. That was a Corvette styling element, not a Thunderbird element. They should have used hooded headlights, but overall, I like the car.
When I was a teen working as a lot boy for Don Mealey, I had an old guy come to me and ask all sorts of pointed questions about some of the cars. He later told me that it's a good idea to ask the kid who's driving them all the time. 🙂
Overdrive was a factory option and very, very few had them like less than 1%. My mom drove a yellow 57 bird for years and called it her “canary”.
This Bird is a real rare bird with the manual and Overdrive, worth more then 15K
Good to know. Thanks!
Ford had so many opportunities with the Thunderbird to keep it as a performance car, once a competitor to the Corvette they could have kept it that way but didn't want to tarnish the Mustangs reputation.
They definitely should have released the SVE Thunderbird in the 90s, planned to be a 4.6 cobra SC motor with a manual. It's criminal they never offered a manual in them, just the boring and slow 4r70w.
Probably right, if they had a V8 & fancier interior they would have been 60k.They were trying to appeal to boomers & they just missed the mark.I still like the Prowler,if that had a V8 & a manual they might of had something.
Sleeping on the SC with a blown v6 it's no slouch. Stick a t5 on it and you have a real joyrider.
@@VanWinger oh yeah the SC is a decent motor, but a Terminator Cobra powered Thunderbird would have been great
They weren't Corvette's competitor except for maybe the first year of the Vette. The vette was pretty much ALWAYS supposed to be the ultimate american sports car. The Thunderbird was ALWAYS a "personal luxury car." They never intended it to be a sports car like the vette. Ever.
Ford even had a supercharged concept of this retro bird. It was a 3.9L V8 with a m112 eaton supercharger on it for 390 hp. Right in line with the Jaguar XKR/XJR motors which made 400-420 hp from a 4.2L. It would have been an amazing GT car with that kind of power. Doug Demuro even says the s/c 4.2L is one of his favorite engines of all time just because of how it feels when accelerating.
7:35 - Definitely not an E-Code 312, missing the dual 4V carburetor setup., if the VIN truly starts with an E then either it's been detuned with the single 4v manifold, or the engine was swapped with a D-Code or similar 312 4V engine. 8:10 - A 3 speed manual was standard, optional was one with overdrive added, and then there was the optional Ford-O-Matic 3 speed auto.
You're spot on my friend 👍
Great info
Super good video Tyler. I have a couple of these cars and they are fun. Not fast but comfortable. Glad you did this little test.
I have a 2005 50th Anniversary T-Bird in a retro color. I considered purchasing a 55 to 57 over the years, but the new Birds were selling about the same as a well restored driver quality old 2 seater Bird at the time. The new one was way more comfortable, overdrive transmission, power steering, XM radio, better handling and everything is new with a warranty. The engine is powerful enough at 280 hp but lacks torques at low RPMs. Still have it, no plans to ever sell and never regretted buying new instead of old restored.
I appreciate This reply. I just bought Back in May, 2004. It's such a nice car It's a two-seat Roadster Cruiser Not a street rod and that's what it was intended to be. The first ones weren't race cars either They were sporty cruisers. And the issues or areas that maybe a little cheap some of the plastic console area which I plan to have a really good upholstery shop Modify so it doesn't squeak can be dealt with. It looks like nothing else on the road and the more I look at it especially with this comparison to the two I think they did a really good job capturing the essence of what the bird would look like now It looks like nothing else on the road and the more I look at it especially with this comparison to the two I think they did a really good job capturing the essence of what the bird would look like now as an offspring from the 55 to 57 model. It looks like nothing else on the road and the more I look at it especially with this comparison to the two I think they did a really good job capturing the essence of what the bird would look like now as an offspring from the 55 to 57 model. It's got plenty of power Torch not bad but again it was never designed to be eraser or a Shelby They never made one of those in a T-bird anyway.
And lastly the JAG engine and lastly the JAG engine sounds great and Huli was completely incorrect and though I think he's a nice guy about the cylinder liner issue and so on that was on the 4.0 that's in the Jags. And that was in the up to 2000 Jags the later jacks don't have that issue they did have a timing chain issue But the 3.9 doesn't have that problem speaking with misinformation about that and why he thought the car might have issues or value problems because that's completely incorrect I did my research when I bought this car and it's not the jack engine with those issues that was a 4 L this is a 3.9 similar engine but not the same one
Minus immaculate beautiful I get looks everywhere I go end You know these cars won't design for anybody that was really tall sorry neither is a Miata
I had a couple v8 Lincoln Ls about 10 years ago. I bought them for close to nothing and fixed the issues with them. Overall a nice driving car with decent power. Same drivetrain as the retro Thunderbird.
Did they have the same dashboard, too? Love the LS
@@jfish9014 I believe they did. I didn’t mind the Ls. I could see how they could cost somebody a small fortune if you had to pay somebody for repairs.
I bought my first one for $1200. Prob an 8 year old car at the time. Had higher mileage on it, like 130k range. Previous owner could not figure out why it ran so badly. Turns out it had 4 bad coils and secondary timing chain tensioners were bad along with the electric aux water pump. Got it all fixed and enjoyed that car for under $2k
@@mph5896 I was trying to find a nice 2005-06 LS with the sport package that wasn’t too far away. Was debating between that or a 2004-05 Bonneville GXP. Ended up finding a decent deal on an 05 Bonneville SLE - arguably more reliable 3.8 V6 than the Northstar in the GXP, but with the smoother GXP rocker panels and bumpers…
The Jag engine in the LS did kinda worry me. Same with the 3.5l and 4.0l in the Auroras that I wanted.
the AJv8 is extremely solid and smooth with timing chain tensioners and water pump/thermostat upgrades. have put 11k miles since last september on a 23yo xk8, love it more day by day, never liked a car more than this, the interior is so special and vibey. only issue it has needed in that span of daily use has been alternator.
@@jfish9014 bonnevilles in that vintage were decent cars. I had a few. Also had a few Grand Prix. Had a gxp I think it was with the 5.3l v8.
My current whip is a hemi rwd charger. An absolute blast to drive. Got it dirt cheap due to a bad camshaft and lifters, and crummy front suspension. Which I fixed all.
I'm on my third Retro and still loving these cars. I was reluctant to watch this episode thinking you would be putting a pen in the vibe and boy you didn't disappoint that thought. In getting back to my ownership of three, my first was a 2004 Pacific Coast Roadster I sold because we were moving across the country. My second one was a 2004 Silver-Bird that was totaled in an accident after owning it about two years. The third I just picked up is a 2005 Bronze with the Sand interior and matching Sand Soft Top (my wife picked this one out) although it is growing on me). And yes nearly all Retro's are limited when it comes to revving the engine but my new one revs and seems to have a little more power that my others. Maybe it's because it's an 05, or did a past owner put a tune or it. I don't know but I do like it. These are fun cars and yest it is a nitch type of ownership. Please note to there are a lot of Clubs out there for Classics and Retros alike. So take your pick and enjoy line in a Bird.
I've always had a bit of a soft spot for TBirds. My first experience in an old American car was as a kid in the early 80s when a friend of my dad took us out in his 60s TBird.
The retro Thunderbird was too expensive at the time of release. Ford preannounced the target price and then released it thousands of dollars higher.
Many of the Ford dealers marked them up as well driving up the price.
Same thing happened to the bronco
That engine was expensive.
ten years later and you can still buy a good 55-57 cheaper than the "retro" one cost new. ford should have put a stock 5 liter and a decent automatic transmission and kept it simple, Americans use two seaters as weekend toys and didn't want to pay Mercedes prices for a ford.
@@elund408 If Ford had based it on a cut-down Crown Vic instead of the Jag, it would have been cheaper to build and offered engine options.
I love the videos. The "one and done" statement is mostly correct. The Beetle had been redesigned over the years to be a more aggressive shape. Also don't forget about the Porsche Boxster. That's been enhanced several times since it's introduction.
The Boxster isn't a retro of something, though.
It sure was
You guys work well together, very enjoyable. I'm now 72 ( sigh ) with a wrecked back from a car accident, and i would buy the newer t/bird in an instant and could drive it nearly year round here in Queensland.
Always a fan of the car and though I’m a mustang guy through my dad, I always loved the classic T-birds. All the 50s till they turned into those boxy land yachts were great looking cars to me. The bullet birds from 61-63 is my favorite. The newer one I would’ve liked to own but my focus is elsewhere and if I ever get another classic its gonna be a bullet bird or a 30s to 40s roadster.
My first car was a 63 Thunderbird Red with a white top red Interior 390 4v ! It was FAST 300 HP !
@@jerryparks6123 lucky bastard, did you manage to hold onto it?
@@noneed4me2n7 aren't the bullet birds pretty affordable? My favorites are the square birds, but as convertible they cost nearly twice as much as a bullet bird her. Not that either would fit in my parking spots ...
My biggest and really about only complaint about the retro bird is it needed about 2 more inches of seat rearward travel. It was not short on power. It sounded good, drove good and felt good driving it.
Hoovie has a bad attitude about this car which honestly is probably spot on. I remember when they came out as a 45 year old thinking the seat didn’t recline or go back enough. Felt tight. Was pretty underwhelming in the power department. I passed as a buyer even though I was pretty excited when they came out.
@@gregsimon1285 they had 2 power levels for the car. The early ones I heard were down on power. I drove the later one with the upgraded engine. I think it had 30 or 35 more hp than the early versions. It was not a hot rod, but it had plenty of power. I considered it sufficient for the way the car would be driven. As a cruiser and sport touring, not a canyon carving sports or muscle car. It was just to tight on the inside legroom wise.
But there were no available engine options. If Ford had based it on the Crown Vic or the Mustang, instead of the Jag, it would have turned out much better.
@@michaelbenardo5695 I am of the opinion the chassis was just fine. But if they had used the 32 valve 4.6 sidewinder out of the Lincoln continental, that would have been almost perfect. If I remember correctly, that motor had around 300 or so hp.
@@americanrambler4972 Maybe, but the Jaguar chassis was just too expensive. That's why I think they should have based the car on a cut-down Crown Vic chassis.
I might be some of the very few! But I always thought ford won the retro craze with this car.
Looked the most like the original, slower, small v8 like the original. Hard top, etc.
As a teenager when this car was only a few years old, I was so shocked at the general distaste for this car. It sorta crushed my ideas of owning one.
I’d love one of the few 007 editions. Always thought this car was perfect, the original thunderbird wasn’t a fast car. Neither is this. It’s a beautiful cruiser
It's much more pleasant than the first iteration of the new camaro 😬
you obviously have never driven one.
the looks are not the problem, it steers like a boat in mud and has lots of fake performance stuff.
I think exactly the same! I was just a little kid when these came out and i remember being amazed by it. Even today i would love to put my hands on a clean exemple in grey or blue.
HALLE BERRY! Halle Berry
@@potatochobit it’s not a performance car… most normal cruisers used to drive like that…
Thanks for the test. I love both, but like in everything in life, nothing beats the original
Very interesting comparison, great commentary, analysis and conclusions. Bob is "the glass is the glass half full" guy and Hoovie is "the glass is half empty" guy. They are both beautiful cars, but the original is my favorite.
Tyler, I enjoyed every minute of this video. I think Ford nailed the retro look.
My dad got a thunderbird when he was in his mid life crisis. It was slow and it made him look even more like an old man.
I'm impressed to hear someone actually speak even remotely positive of the Sebring. People love to dog on that car. I've never driven one myself, but I've owned its heavily-revised successor, the 200, for several years now and it has been an excellent car with a very smooth and refined (for the class) substantial feel on the road. It drives almost like a luxury car. At least moreso than the Accord and Maxima of the time. It's also, oddly, one of the few FWD cars I've ever driven that feels like it's trying to oversteer when you're throwing it around--the rear is surprisingly playful. Very underrated car when loaded with the V6. Comfortable, very quiet, and mine has been impeccably reliable over the 200k+ miles that it now has. I just put on new tires and have kinda fallen in love with it again, deer damage, cracked windshield, and rust bubbles be damned. I'm glad I gave it a chance. Definitely one of the best purchases I've made in my years. It's a shame so many people wrote it off for no reason other than that it was a refreshed Sebring.
As for the Thunderbirds, I love the old one. Timeless car that looks and sounds great. And while I'm not a fan of Jag powertrains, I have to admit that the "new" one is a pretty awesome car for $16k. You almost never see them, so they'd be a great cruiser for Cars and Coffee. I've also always liked the style.. I always thought they did a great job, very unique design. If they had the engine and transmission from the Cobra, I'd drool over it. That supercharged 4.6 was an absolute darling.
Any relation to the Dodge Intrepid? That was a comfy large front wheel drive V6.
Sebrings/200's/Avengers were definitely underrated. As long as people stayed away from the 2.7L V6 engines and didn't get ripped off by the shops they take them too then they're actually very sturdy used cars. I flipped cars for a living up until about a year ago and have bought many of them over the years that people threw away thinking they needed major repair due to incompetent or lying mechanics giving them false diagnoses... Great underrated cars like you said.
@@wayland7150 No relation, but I also had a Chrysler 300M once, which was a sibling of the Intrepid (LH family). That was a great car too, but it was car of the year in 1999, so I can't say it didn't get its due appreciation. Its performance was underappreciated, though. It, a large FWD entry-luxury sedan, matched the slalom speed of the then-new Nissan 350Z according to either Motor Trend or Car&Driver.
Yay Bob!
I do agree with Hoovie about it failing due to the age of the baby bird fans, but I also think it looked too much like a giant Figaro. The chrome treatment on the headlights looks cheap and the original didn’t have chrome head light surrounds. They missed a trick by not having some chrome on the bumpers to emulate the original.
Hoovies “car review” videos are normally my least favourite of his, with Bob to bounce off I really enjoyed this video.
Actually the '55 had chrome 'eyebrows', so not that bizarre.
I think there were a lot of people who were still tuned into the Thunderbird as a personal luxury coupe/sports coupe when the retro came out in the early 00s. The preceding gen still had a lot of life left into it as was killed off prematurely in my opinion. That it was killed off turned a bunch of people off.
I think what turned people off was the cheap looking black plastic dash. Also, it should have had hooded headlights, like the original. The Corvette, it's arch rival, had sunken headlights.
The new thunderbird failed because the people wanted it to be a sports car but it was built to be a luxury coupé
The interior was not very luxury.
No, the Thunderbird was always a luxury coupe, it failed because it wasn't luxurious enough, the build quality sucks, and the Jaguar V8 in this car sucks
I recall those 5 speed autos had a flaw that if you addressed it early, it would last, but if not, you would need to rebuild at significant cost.
Yep. This trans had a hardened steel piston that rode in a much softer aluminum bore. Eventually, the bore would wear and the piston would either get stuck or fluid would leak past the piston and the car would not shift properly.
It happened to many Fords that used this transmission and often happened at under 30,000 miles. It is a pretty good trans other than that.
How do you address it early?
@@kesando84 You can drop the trans and install a steel sleeve in the bore. The trans does not have to be disassembled as the piston and bore are on the side of the tranny. Ford solved the problem in later years.
@@kesando84 Honestly not sure. If it's in the valve body, just needs the pan dropped, and replace the offending part. If it's internal to the transmission, a rebuild is the only way. But I think it's in the valve body.
Thank you both for the response. I will pass this info on to my parents. They own a low mile (under 6k mile) 2004 vintage mint green model.
The Toyota Solara comparison is BRUTAL but spot on. Great vid, the backwards camera worked out nicely.
Crazy to think there was a time when Ford owned Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin
Don't forget Volvo! Volvo is how we got all the new Ford Cars and SUVs in the later 2000s. They were all based on Volvo or modified Volvo architecture. New Taurus, Explorer, Edge, Fusion, and all the related Lincoln variants. It basically underpinned the whole "One Ford" direction the company went up until very recently.
@@ZboeC5 very True!
And Mazda
@@ZboeC5 was one of fords mini van very Nissan like as well?
I never knew the retro T-bird had a Jag v8 in it. Shame on Ford! They should have put the 4.6l v8 32v (Mark VIII engine) in it!
Hoovie nails it...Chrysler Sebring Convertible delivered pretty close to the same thing, but also had a back seat. No, I'm not biased there...owned a Chrysler Sebring Convertbile since Feb 1998, but the current one, 2001 Chrysler Sebring Convertible Limited has been awesome for 21+ years. Owned a couple Lincoln Mark VIII's as well as a 1995 Ford Thunderbird. Miss that 4.6l v8!
LOL, small world. I drive a 2000 Sebring vert. and previously owned a 95’ Mark VIII. Like you, I was very fond of that 4 valve 4.6. The Sebring was looked down on but it is a great sunny day cruiser that you can ride in with a few friends.
You have zero taste in cars therefore your opinion dont count.
I mean they put that engine in literally everything else..
Ford Mustang
Ford Crown Victoria
Ford E-Series
Ford Expedition
Ford Explorer
Ford Explorer Sport Trac
Ford F-150
Ford Thunderbird
Lincoln Aviator
Lincoln Continental
Lincoln Mark VIII
Mercury Cougar
Mercury Grand Marquis
Mercury Marauder
Etc.
Which all them were at least fairly successful in their own right and then they decide to put some foreign piece of junk in their retro designed flagship convertible that caused all this hype and excitement instead of a proven success, why didn’t they use the mustang platform or even crown Vic?
Also just want to add, I think the 4.6 was trash and completely under powered🫢😆
@@vcall6121 certainly the 2 valve was no powerhouse with 225hp at best but the 4 valve had 320hp in the Cobra version. Not bad for the time.
When Ford announced this retro T-Bird, they marketed it as the Ford answer to the Corvette, and it wasn’t even close. Then dealers played the “market adjustment” game and pissed off buyers. I would love to have a low mileage one as a sunny day cruiser
Tyler and Bob, I just saw a article saying 2009 to 12 Colorado's and gms had v8s. If ordered correct. Just a thumbs up Tyler, that's all I need..
I loved the way they looked. The mistake was using jaguar parts
Wrong, the mistake was using Ford parts. While Jaguar was using the ZF6HP6 6 speed gearbox Ford was still using their own rubbish 5 speed that Jaguar dumped as soon as possible. While Jaguar was using the indestructible 4.2L AJ33 Ford detuned the previous 4.0L engine to 3.9L and stuck it in the Thunderbird. This piece of crap came out at the same time as the S-Type R, which is 100x better in every way.
The new one is cool enough but the original looks so damn classy! Especially that rear end.
Funny that you mention the guy in his 80's buying the retro bird. My dad is 81 and he loves his retro bird. It's his wife's summer convertible. He also loves chrome and hates black wheels. I like body colored bumpers, mirrors, moldings, and emblems and I'm in my late 50's. The other part of this video I loved is that my dad was a used car dealer for about 20+ years, and I got to witness many of his crazy situations. He also financed his own cars, so I always got to go repo cars for him when I was home on leave from the Army. It was a fun adventure I would look forward to while visiting dad.
One time I was at his car lot and a great big lumberjack with the bib overalls and cork boots was looking at cars on the front line. At that time those cars were about $4-6k. The lumberjack was spitting chew on the ground and acting like he was king of the town. My dad is about 5'5", and the lumberjack was nearly a foot taller and probably 100 lbs heavier. The lumberjack told dad that he was looking for a car for $500. Dad asked if he had $500 down, and the lumberjack said, "No. I want to buy a car for $500."
Dad was still attempting to be cordial with the potential customer but was rapidly losing patience. He told the lumberjack that the $500 cars were in the back and started to lead him to the back of the lot where an old Ford Pinto was sitting. Dad walked straight to the Pinto and the lumberjack said, "A Pinto! I wouldn't give you $50 for a Pinto!"
At that point dad lost all sense of composure and looking up at the lumberjack from about one foot away said, "You're pretty f^&(%ng choosy for a poor bastard! Get the hell off of my lot!" I stood there waiting to see what was going to happen next, thinking that the lumberjack would probably crush my dad and I would have to come to his defense, but apparently my dad was intimidating enough to chase away the lumberjack. He turned and left the lot. I was astounded but amazed that my dad survived. Apparently, he had many of these encounters in his years of dealing cars.
I love your content, thanks for a solid presentation!
I really liked the retro Bird when they came out. The dealer mark up ticked me off so bad, I refused to seriously entertain it. Dad really loved them. He wanted one for a long time. He even looked at one last summer. I lost him this year and would give ANYTHING to be able to buy this one for him.
My dad bought an 84 Fiero iron duke auto. His Camaro had rusted out and he wanted a plastic car. He never maintained it and it threw a rod.
To be fair, I wouldn't say it failed...it just didn't blow the market away. This is because these dropped in 2002 starting at $36,000, and going up from there with better packages. For reference, that's about $60,000 in today's money. For further comparison, a 2002 Mustang SVT Cobra was $28,600.
I think they look good, but it was just a car that the market wasn't expecting and at a price that most people weren't willing to swallow. Nonetheless, they still sold fairly well: they sold nearly 40,000 cars in 2002 and 2003, which is actually pretty impressive considering how much more expensive the car was. The 2002 Camaro sold 28,000 cars. The 2002 Thunderbird sold 19,000.
Great points. 👍 And this was all during the growing SUV craze.
OK. I own a 57 TBird, albeit it's a basket case, and I have learned a ton about it over many years. The original TBird WAS NOT an inexpensive car. They sold on average for about $3500, and could easily reach $4000. It was priced in kind with the Corvette, which also was not an inexpensive car. For just a little more, you'd be driving a Lincoln or a Cadillac. A standard full size Ford or Chevy could be had for about $2000 at that time. The metalwork inside the car is aluminum stamped in an engine turned pattern. The padded dash was standard on the 57 for the first time. This was done by Ford mainly to hide the addition of the 56 Ford instrument cluster to the 55 TBird dashboard. The cover is very necessary, trust me. Very few cars had a padded dash at that time, and it was considered a bit of a luxury item. They were an option for the full size Ford and Chevy. I thought I heard you guys say it was an E-code car. It isn't. It is either C or D coded. Look at the VIN, the first letter is the engine code. C is 292 2 barrel, D is 312 4 barrel, E is 312 dual 4 barrel, F is supercharged. If the VIN starts with E or F, the engine is incorrect, and it is a financial blessing for you, but I suspect you will find a D in the VIN. Most TBirds were so equipped. (Mine was). The horn ring is incorrect. The one present is for a 58 Fairlane. The hood should not be black underneath. The entire underhood area should be outer body color. Portholes in the top were an option for 56 and 57, and are not present on correct 55s. They were offered to resolve complaints of inadequate vision with the hardtop on the 55. The top was solid unless the customer asked for the portholes, which most did. In the video this car looked pretty good, especially considering its advanced age. Yes, the overdrive is original. It was an option, and a very good one, too. Don't blow the clutch up, because that is a really nasty job to get the trans out of that car.
I had been in the market for the 'retro' TBird. The car was beset with delays in development. The LS platform worked fine as a 4 door sedan, but it had handling issues when shortened and equipped with the 2 door convertible body. It took Ford a long time to fix it. Additionally, every Ford dealer I asked was slapping a huge 5 figure markup on the TBird, which placed it right in line with the Corvette. I figured that if I was going to pay a Corvette price, I was going to have one. That is exactly what I did. I still own that Corvette convertible today.
Good luck with the cars, and enjoy them!
What's kind of funny is that I'm a millennial, yet since childhood, I've always really really really loved the look of the newer Thunderbirds. They're one of the few street cars I'd occasionally see that I really wanted to own, even though I was maybe 8 or 9 years old at the time. But I also really liked the SSR as well as a kid, so maybe I'm just weird?
About 10 years ago, I was interested in the retro bird.
Since the ford's method was to use the same platform across the board, I assumed that they used the Mustang power train.
I was totally disappointed to find out that this did not have a Mustang engine, but rather some other(?)
I felt that the availability of parts and aftermarket performance extras was non existant.
I think that they would have sold so many more if the Mustang platform was used instead of the one they chose.
It could have been a Sportier alternate body style.
In my mind that is the dirty little secret!!
Used Lincoln LS/jaguar underpinnings and motor
@@fredshanks2240
Yes i remember that now.
At the time I felt that was a dead end configuration.
I doubt if there are many performance parts for it.
GM did the same thing with the Cadillac sports car(?) . It was build on the Corvette line, but had a crap Cadillac engine instead of the better Corvette LS power.
They were afraid there would be a loss of prestige with a chev motor.
Well that car was also a dead end.......and over priced and under powered.
Lest we forget the forgettable Cadillac Allente & Buick Somerset/. Same same .................
These clowns will never learn!
@@loufaiella3354 That would have been the 2004-2009 Cadillac XLR that platform shared with the Corvette.
The Mustang was meant to use this platform, but it was too expensive so they bodged a live rear axel onto it and called it something new.
I was thinking the Crown Vic, but Mustang would have been good also. Much better than basing it on a Jag.