It sure did. I remember my History teacher had his brand new 83 TBird. It was sharp and the first hint at thier aerodynamic look of the Taurus for 86. Aircraft style door seals, the look was perfect.
This and ones like these were the design epitome of what a 'car' was, remember all the diecast toys, they were almost like this. This boxy design needs to make a comeback, you rock 83 Thunderbird!
Yup his voice as been in my ears since I was 15 years old back in the mid 80's. He has followed us Gen X'rs from our teen years all the way into our middle age and beyond. Amazing that over 40 years later he is still not only with us but still doing the same thing.
I agree,the Cougars roof rear styling in my opinion didn't do that car any favors,I think the cougar could have been a good looking car if they would have used the Thunderbirds roof.I think Ford made a good move with the styling of the T-Bird,it was bold and with a look that was far from common at the time.
@KartKing4ever I could probably at least somewhat agree. I think it's been about give or take around several years since my great uncle drove the car. Yet he hasn't really considered selling it off still. If the car ain't used in some years it can be still an interest to someone who wants to buy it & get some work done being restored & etc.
@@joemcdonough7509 as I mentioned, the car belongs to my great uncle. At this point he's probably going to leave it to his sons if not one of them. Besides I won't hold my breath he would have even a small amount of consideration to sell the car.
I bought an '83 5.0L car with 93K last May for $500. It's my summer daily-driver. Quiet, powerful-enough, and comfy. The CFI still functions flawlessly, AC works, and the AOD transmission is perfect. Great car!
A this point, we're better off with older cars, these new cars are expensive crap that break down after 3 months. I have a 95 buick roadmaster lt1 and it's powerful and comfy and the ac is icy cold 🥶 😎
Bought a 84 cougar in 94 for 900 that had custom rims that costed like 2k at the time. Drove it for 3 years till I totaled it. It was about time for a new car anyways cause I never changed the oil. Sold the car for like 250 for scrap and the rims for 500... rinse and repeat. I had never paid over 2k for a vehicle except in the n past 10 years. But always wished I would of kept the first car I ever bought and just drove it all my life. Miss that 71 dodge dart with no brakes I paid 300 for in 93... that drove... bought a 2019 Hyundai for 22k in 2019. It got vandalized and costed 9k to fix. Then three months later the motor was knocking. Got rid of it and just bought an old Ford truck for 3k and still going after 5 years...
Just be prepared to do things like fuel lines or the tank, and the catalytic converters. All the rubber trim on the car as well. When you take a car that is 40 something years old with only 90,000 mi on it and then you start driving it daily it's going to start having problems. Maybe not at first but eventually. Just be prepared to put a few more Grand into it.
@hankwilliams-hx9ww my next car will be older. I'm tired of newer vehicles and expensive hard to solve problems. I'd take any old car I used to have over these newer ones and regret treating them as disposable.
These cars were everywhere. The Turbo Coupe with the manual tranny was the best version of this car. It handled amazing. I had the 86' LSC and it is still a top 5 favorite of mine all these years later.
What a radical car for ‘83, especially compared to the dowdy previous gen which looked like a 70’s T-Bird that was left in the dryer for too long. A lot of people credit the Taurus for Ford US’s Aero revamp but this was 3 years ahead of that. Would love to have one of these or its Mercury or Lincoln cousin.
I had and loved a (bought used) base-level 1980 Thunderbird, but I remember the amazement with this new design's début. Together the two eras symbolized past and future.
Some people call this car ugly. They have never taken a look at GM, Chrysler or foreign automaker's 1983 lineup apparently. And stop crying about the power. None of you were around when it was new. Those who bought it new had no complaints. Torque trumps horsepower. Small wheels, lightweight body & an extra gear in the transmission means it doesn't need alot of power especially when speed limits were 55mph.
@@anthonyrowland9072The G bodies were decent but they don't look proportionately correct. They're too short. Ford Lincoln-Mercury stretched the Thunderbird, Cougar and Mark VII properly.
Hmmm I was around when this was new, 19 in fact. We as motorheads laughed at first but a speed shop had 2 and they geared the rear end better and put a small cam in with polished and ported heads and dual exhaust... Quite impressive I must say. Heck my 1983 GT Mustang with its tremec 5 speed is still a joy to drive to this very day although as I am about to be 60 I don't push the envelope like I used to... Lol... Keep those insurance rates down.
@@randallbates9020 With a body that can be taken apart and put back together tightly with a screwdriver and 130hp on tap insurance was definitely cheap on these lol. I remember asking my insurance carrier a long time ago why is my insurance on my Taurus GL cheap and so expensive on my Taurus SHO. Same body basically. They said the horsepower difference. Idek want to know how high insurance is on new cars today.
My mother bought a brand new1985 Turbo Coupe 5 speed and loved it so much she kept it until 1996. All I remember is that is was amazing on gas and my friends loved riding in it on the rare occasion she'd pick me up after school.
My favorite generation of the Thunderbird. Those Aerobirds were a big step forward in the auto industry and are said to have been the prime vehicle that led to the successful Taurus/Sable.
Mock if you must, but with marijuana sales on the rise and on the verge of becoming more mainstream, I'm confident that the ashtray is due 4 a comeback
Many of the features touted as revolutionary on the 86 Taurus were found here first. A great reminder of that. Doors integrated with roof design and aerodynamic styling.
This new Thunderbird was quite a big deal in 1983! They borrowed a bit of the 635 design and 3 engine choices including a Turbo 4! And that suspension was really tight like a Mustang. This car carried Ford in a new technical and design direction until the ‘90s! Thanks John! ✨
This model was quite the dramatic improvement over the 1980-82 Thunderbird. Its styling was unique and modern, yet it still carried heritage cues from previous models. Also, it helped pave the way for more aerodynamic cars in the U.S. over the next several years.
First time I ever heard of this car was when I saw it at the 1982 International car show in San Francisco. It was the first true aerodynamic passenger sedan in the USA. One feature was getting rid of rain gutters on doors and using a technology used on aircraft instead to keep rain from getting in. It would have had aerodynamic clear covers over the headlights too but DOT rules didn't allow it at the time. It was so refreshing compared to the square bricks already on the road.
I loved mine! Only thing this car was missing was a proper 5.0L under the hood. The TBI 5.0 was weak sauce. Overall, this was a very nice auto, and great on the highway
Perhaps not fast but still a great engine. To be honest I’ll take the weak understressed engine. I have a 1994 F150 with the 5.0 and it’s got 320,000 and still going strong, whereas my Dads 2012 King Ranch blew the engine at 95,000 despite him babying it and changed the oil at 4,000 miles. It actually cracked 4 pistons. He specifically got that over the 3.5 ecoboost because people told him it would be more reliable
@@RobertSmith-le8wp Copy that. The 302 is practically bulletproof and totally reliable. Ford missed the market by not offering a H.O. Mustang 5.0L version of that engine in the T-bird in a higher trim level. My only other gripe with the car was the rims (just like the T-bird in the video) were difficult to keep clean because brake dust accumulated in the tiny nooks and crannies. Some 16" alloy Mustang rims would alleviate that tho
I've been a Ford man since 1966 when my oldest brother brought home a new Mustang, maybe even before that. I had this thing for big Country Squire and Colony Park wagons, and ever since I was old enough to notice cars, at 5 years old I have loved the styling of the 1959 model year Fords. Both sedans and wagons, the 59 Fords have been in my top 5 all-time favorites. Depending on what I happen to be into, my top 5 is kinda fluid, but it always includes the 59s, oh, and the 1969 Mach Is. I actually owned one for over 35 years and I wish I still had it. I love everything about the 69 Mach I. Sometimes I would just sit and stare at it, from every angle, and that includes the interior too. Then there's the Thunderbirds. There are things I love about every generation. I owned a 1970, a 2 door fastback, 428 4 barrel carburetor that could only get 8 mpg, with a tail wind. From it's Bunkie beak,it's ultra cool taillights with sequential turn indicators and it's fantastic interior, in my opinion the best word to describe it is gorgeous, but not a good car to own during the 1973 oil crisis. At the time, I still had the Mach I, needless to say I spent way too much time in gas lines. I also love the 74 through 76 "glamor birds. They are the same car as the Lincoln Mark IVs.Yes they are huge, but very beautiful. In 1984 I came very close to buying a 84 TurboCoupe, but at the time I was an IBM Customer Engineer which was a field position and my territory was West Los Angeles, one of the most heaviest and traffic areas in L.A. and the TurboCoupe only came with a manual transmission. That would not be a good fit for a car with a clutch so I went with an 84 Mustang with an automatic transmission. It was a black on black hatchback, and it had a 4.6 V8. I drove the wheels off of that little Stang, it turned out to be a good territory car. Today I'm retired and I have a 2008 Explorer, 4.0 V6. My first car that isn't a V8 and I love it. It's my second Explorer, my first was a 97 Eddie Bauer with the 5.0 V8. It was black with medium prerrie leather interior. It had the 15 inch chrome factory wheels. I had all the gold Eddie Bauer trim painted black and it was always the best looking Explorer around. I got compliments about how it looked and the great sounding exhaust of the 5.0. I loved that Explorer. It was very reliable and comfortable, it had every available option including ATC. It had over 200,000 trouble free miles on it when it was jacked from in front of my house and I never saw it again. So, after reading this article on the 83 Thunderbird, I definitely felt a stirring. Maybe I should try to find one. Thanks for a great review!,
I have an 84 T-Bird. 5.0 loaded, digital dash, power rear antenna, LED headlights and no rust anywhere. 17,000 miles. A real head turner today and fun to drive.
I was born in 1962. Owned 34 .vehicles. Many Fords. 4 crown vics. Had a 1988 Thunderbird 5.0 and 1987 Mercury Cougar. They were beautiful cars and rode like a dream. God I miss the old days so much. Love this RU-vid series. Thank you so much for the memories.
My father had a year old Thunerbird every year from 1959 to 1982. ( He represented a Ford dealer who ordered a new black, fully loaded one and he got his old one ) He didn't like the '83 and switched to Porsche.
I owned 3 Turbo Coupes, '83, '86 and '87...all were great cars! I especially liked the '87 with 195 HP intercooled turbo. Put over 225K miles on it with no major issues and would've gone further but got rear-ended one day. I loved these cars!
I loved my 86 turbo coupe. That 4 cylinder would smoke many v8 chevys. Lowest rear end gear ratio of any production car at the time, might still be for all i know. This body style still holds the track record at Talladega set in 1987 by Bill Elliott.
@bluemax2491 Ford Needs To Bring Back The Thunderbird Because The Mustang Is Getting Dominated By The Chevrolet Camaro And The Chevrolet Corvette And It Is Because Of Suv And Crossover It Is Because Of Suv's And Truck's
@moejr1974 The Mustang Is Outselling The Camaro But The Corvette Is Outselling The Mustang And That Is Why Ford Needs To Bring Back The Thunderbird When Ford Has Introduced The Thunderbird It Has Outselled The Corvette And Sense Then Ford Has Dominated Chevrolet
Just because the Mustang outsells the Camaro doesn't mean it's better. Mustang has always outsold Camaro but it wasn't always better. Mustangs are for female drivers Camaros are for men. Tell me I'm wrong? Lmao
No man has ever complained about the last two recent generation Camaros being too hard to get in and out of and crying they can't see over the dash or out of the side windows. Only women cry about such silly things. And Camaros don't spin out of the line like Mustangs do.
i had two 84 cougars, one with the V6 and one with the 302 V8. Very comfortable however the footwells were quite narrow. I then had a 94 and it was much more comfortable and roomy inside than the 84s. Still, I really loved the era of 2 door personal luxury coupes, since i also had 2 Cutlass Supremes, an 84 and an 87. I miss that era.
I like how they explained it didn't need a lot of horsepower to cruise at 55mph when it showed the wind tunnel. Try telling that to the clowns we have out here today that think everything has to have 100,000 horsepower. I think we need to go back to 55mph speed limits and put a cap on horsepower. Insurance is nearly unaffordable now because everyone drives too fast too recklessly.
I'd hate the 55mph max, but too many people like hit each other in excess of 90mph. Like these people don't understand the faster you go when you hit something the more likely it is to be fatal. If 55max is what it takes to reduce fatal crashes innocent people didn't ask to be involved in and lowers my insurance rates then I'll accept it. Reluctantly lol.
@@moejr1974 Yeah, it makes the engine less reliable. The most reliable engines don't have a lot of horsepower. Like the old TBI 350 GM V8 with 185-200hp is more reliable than the LT1 with 260hp. The old Ford 5.4 with 235hp is more reliable than the later 260hp & 300hp 5.4 V8s. The old 7.3 PowerStroke with 250hp is more reliable than the 325hp 6.0 PowerStroke. The old 245hp Dodge 360 Magnum V8 is more reliable than the newer 345-395hp 5.7 Hemi V8s.
Hey I live in the southwest and BS to 55 mph, it's already a very long way to everywhere but at 55 you would need a friggin motel room for the night... Lol... Responsible driving is in the hands of the operator, speed limits being lower is not gonna stop the idiots driving their massive fake pickup trucks at 90 mph, common sense left the building somewhere around 2005.
3:00 ''doors curve nicely into the roof'' Especially effective so that a bank of snow falls on your seat cause you just wanted your snow brush which is inside,
@@cabaneencac5168 Ya know, I never thought of it before but I bet that vacuum cleaner would work in a pinch? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I'm going to try it this winter just for 💩's and giggles 🤣
Well designed car, especially for the era. Except, I suppose, for that rear-wheel hop. Honestly 21 MPG overall for this performance (relative to the day and age of course), seems pretty decent. Sticker price in 2024 dollars also feels reasonable at $42,000.
It got stellar mpg because it can only burn so much fuel at 130hp. High torque low rpm does wonders for mpg. That's a concept people can't seem to grasp today. Everything is all about horsepower and 0 to 60 smh lol
21 MPG is extremely low. I would average that doing pizza deliveries in my thunderbird. Freeway is pretty close to 28mpg at 65mph and 25ish at 75mph. Few times driving long highway roads with 55mph speed limits, I touched on 35mpg a few times over an entire tank.
It's interesting that this T-bird's styling is something of a predecessor to what would eventually come with the Taurus. Gotta say, the later versions with the flush headlights look a lot better. Also, dig the void set for showing off the interior. I think MW should go back to presenting cars that way. Forget parking the car in a field, how does it look when parked in the void??
That car was so damned good looking. And it absolutely *dominated* NASCAR. So much so, NASCAR hobbled them half way through the season. Chevy was still using boxy Monte Carlos, and simply couldn't keep up. And we can't have that, now can we?
In the early 90's we had a 85 Cougar V6 with automatic and 88 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe 5 speed manual. I didn't like either one of them. They were my bf's cars. I had a 89 Mazda 626 LX 5speed that lasted 277k miles while those other two only made it to about 120k miles before bigger problems. And my Mazda didn't even die, I traded it in and one of Kim K's bf's bought it.
The front end diving and rear end lifting a foot into the air when braking isn't because the rear end is "light" its because of the prehistoric suspension design. There is no consideration for anti-lift/dive, so the torque of the brakes causes the rear end to lift. You see the same thing when they brake torque it before launching. Modern suspension is lightyears better in this regard.
That 130hp 302 will outlast anything they got today. And it doesn't have to rev to 5,000rpm to get going neither. You won't find a small block today that gets 21mpg with MotorWeek's lead footed test drivers lol.
This was a typical 80’s car, no thought put into the end user, it was what Ford told the public what they wanted. Of course the push for cleaner exhausts and additional crash standards didn’t help the situation at all.
Sister had one the v8 leaked oil every where on it stayed in shop. Paint was fair at best,it was that wine color like promo , after a year it really wouldn't Polish up clear was gone. Just saying.
Dude....it's a four speed in an era we're 3 speeds were highly popular. It has 130hp and a 💩 ton of torque. The torque is what pushed it down the track. And it got 21mpg during their testing. From a large small block with a power sapping accessory drive system + belt driven cooling fan. That said, the performance was excellent. You wanna go faster try its big brother that wears a tux, Lincoln Mark VII LSC with the Hight Output 302. Now that baby will FLY!
It got stellar mpg because it can only burn so much fuel at 130hp. High torque low rpm does wonders for mpg. That's a concept people can't seem to grasp today. Everything is all about horsepower and 0 to 60
