 |
| The 2002-2005 Ford Thunderbird |
I never understood why this car didn't sell. My neighbors down-the-street have one that looks just like the one in the pictures. It's going on 10 years old now, still looks sharp (always clean as a pin), and I'm guessing they'll hold onto it. It still turns my head when they drive by.
Obviously they're not keeping it for the investment value. The most recent 'Bird sank like a rock. And that's what I don't understand. It's not an aggressive enough car for me--I wouldn't have bought one. But it was aimed at the personal luxury car market, and I don't see where it missed the mark there. The specs: a 280 h.p. 4-cam V-8 with variable valve timing and a 5-speed automatic with a manual mode. That would seem to be right in the wheelhouse of the 'Bird's market segment.
Granted, it doesn't use space efficiently and it's not economical to run. Granted, it's not a canyon-carver. But since when were those benchmarks in the p.l.c. market segment? It might not have had the cachet of a Bimmer or a Mercedes--but it looked better than either of them. The only thing that might explain the 'Bird's failure is the dashboard and center stack, which look uncomfortably close to a cheap GM offering:
2 comments:
It's pretty, but a little too "rounded" - not sporty enough. Like you said, hard edged. Lacking interest. Just my guess.
Thanks for that! It caused me to go back and change the language of the post. By "hard edged" I meant engineered for performance, not the styling. I actually LIKE the rounded lines. But maybe a lot of people in the market for a personal luxury car didn't...
Post a Comment