![]() ![]() Overall fit-and-finish is absolutely superb-particularly for a recently produced Ford car. The 3.9-liter engine is excellent with plenty of acceleration from the light and at speed. Early articles from several automotive magazines suggested the ’Bird was purely a boulevard cruiser. THE CAR DRIVES BEAUTIFULLY AND HANDLES far better than I expected. The dealer was so jealous they had not received one yet that they refused to even wash the car. And those heated seats that are in the LS and S-Type aren’t offered (hey, this is a convertible). The bad parts are few: Ford customer service is pathetic. It looks far better in person than it did in print. ![]() THE GOOD PARTS ARE MANY: IT’S QUICKER and better-handling than expected. ![]() Did I mention this car is gorgeous? A defensive driving course should be offered with each vehicle purchase, as other drivers practically drive into you as they are gawking. With the hardtop off, wind buffeting is nonexistent. THUNDERBIRD? WHAT THUNDERBIRD? Despite having a deposit with a dealer since April 1999, I still do not have my car. We were first on our dealer’s list for three years. We planned to purchase a restored ’57 Thunderbird, but felt this was a better option when it became clear Ford would build it. People stop us in parking lots, at stoplights, and even try to hold rolling conversations with us to inquire about or admire the car. And it attracts more attention than we could have ever imagined. It has good power and very supportive but comfortable seats. Moral of the story: Keep the removable hardtop, not the car, in the garage. But once the convertible roof is stowed, open-air driving is good and wind buffeting is minimal. Some over-six-foot-tall owners report feeling claustrophobic in the cabin. Owners, most of whom found nothing short of the now-discontinued Chrysler Prowler to cross-shop, said the Thunderbird is a good choice for everything from daily commutes to drop-top cruising to long-distance travel. Through it all, the Thunderbird maintained its composure, with a surprising aplomb that caught many owners pleasantly off guard. Our test car needed just 124 feet to stop from 60 mph, bettering the LS by 11 feet and even outdoing a Mercedes C320. Thunderbird’s four-wheel disc brakes provided good stopping distances with no sign of brake fade, rotor distress or pulsation. Rear: Control arms, coil springs, shock absorbers, antiroll barįuel delivery:Sequential electronic fuel injection The sport-tuned LS we tested back in ’99 turned 0.81 g and ran the slalom at only 40.5 mph.įront: Control arms, coil springs, shock absorbers, antiroll bar For comparison purposes, in a recent test BMW’s M3 (about 350 pounds lighter) pulled 0.87 g and ran the same slalom course at 46 mph. On the skidpad, the Thunderbird pulled a respectable 0.83 g and wheeled through our slalom course at 44.1 mph. ![]() Thunderbird turns in this performance despite odd gearing in which first runs to 43 mph while second is good for only a 14-mph range, shifting to third at 57 mph.Īlthough the chassis suffers from the usual convertible shakes, the car corners ably, offering a mild amount of understeer that is easily managed via throttle modulation. Compared to its LS sibling, Thunder-bird is downright quick: The LS’s 0-to-60-mph time is 8.37 seconds its quarter-mile, 16.19 seconds at 88.9 mph (AW, Nov. That’s almost as quick as a Honda Civic Si in 0-to-60-mph time, and nearly half a second faster than the V8-powered Oldsmobile Aurora in the quarter-mile. Producing 252 horsepower at 6100 rpm and 267 lb-ft of torque at 4300 rpm, Thunderbird does 0 to 60 mph in 7.25 seconds and hits the quarter-mile in 15.39 seconds at 91.3 mph. Built on the same rear-wheel-drive chassis as the Lincoln LS, Thunderbird also comes with the same drivetrain: a premium-fueled 3.9-liter V8 mated to a five-speed automatic. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |