Motorweek 1997 Ford Thunderbird Road Test

[@Summitauto]

I have owned 2 of these cars. One V6 and one V8. I still have the V8. Two of the most dependable, low maintenance cars I have ever owned. If you can find a low mileage rust free model scoop it up. You will have to do ball joints and control arms in the front, but such a solid platform. My favorite car of all time.

[@idontknow2rhhfhf]

Mine has 40k miles

[@Summitauto]

@@idontknow2rhhfhf amazing

[@dennishogenmiller4456]

Purchased a 1997 Thunderbird in 1999. Had it for 13 years. Best car I ever had! Loved it! Wish Ford would come out with a T-Bird coupe!

[@Skyisthelimit4me]

The days of practical sensible affordable transportation are over. The automakers are super greedy and the people who keep buying these new cars are super asinine. We will never ever have affordable transportation in this country ever again. I would give anything to be able to walk into a Ford dealer and hand them $17,000 for a brand new Thunderbird LX with the 145hp 3.8 V6. All I would do to it is a manual transmission swap from the Super Coupe to maximize the efficiency of the 3.8. But now if I want a couple I am 💩 outta luck. I won't buy a senseless SUV or a silly truck.

[@jimlubinski4731]

Bought one of these in 1991 with the 5.0L V-8, but then traded in 1994 for the 4.6L V-8. It's the most dependable trouble free car I've owned. Mine is up to over 500k miles and it's still dependable, fast enough and quiet. Like it so much that when I came across a '95 Cougar XR-7 with the same engine and only 68k miles last year, I snapped it up.

[@andrewe4277]

I have owned a 1996 LX V8, 1997 LX Sport V8, and now own a low mileage 1990 Thunderbird Super Coupe.

[@porsche928s4]

Thats crazy you got basically a luxury mustang gt for 22k

[@Skyisthelimit4me]

With the old fox body Thunderbird, yeah.

[@black4vcobra]

Still needed more power. Ford shit the bed with the early 4.6 SOHC engines. 250 hp should have been the absolute basement on them.

[@Skyisthelimit4me]

@@black4vcobra Dude stop complaining, okay? When the 4.6 was new on the market, NOBODY complained about more power. For those who did want more power they bought a Mark VIII, Continental or a Cobra. Later, they also go to choose from an Aviator or a Marauder. That's the truth and nothing but the truth. Take a look at what happens when you start adding crap to an engine to give it more horsepower. They become unreliable. They become damn near uninsurable. When they added variable cam timing to the 4.6 it's good reputation was over. 90% of those Thunderbirds with a 4.6 don't go do the road being pulled by max horsepower anyway, they get propelled by using 75% of max low end torque. That 4.6 was torquey which is what matters and which is why nobody complained or called it underpowered. You people call it underpowered now looking at car reviews and spec sheets on paper because you see 400hp being the norm now. It takes direct injection, variable cam timing, variable intake and forced induction in some cases to get that kind of power. Now you have a $10,000-$15,000 motor instead of a $3,000-$5,000 motor. Don't 💩 on the 4.6 dum dude, put some respeck on it!

[@black4vcobra]

@@Skyisthelimit4me To start, I am a Ford guy and have a supercharged Mustang Cobra so I'm not shitting on Ford overall. Some of your comment is completely true - the early 4.6's were torquey though they ran out of breath pretty quickly above 5000 rpm. They are very reliable as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of them that served as police cruisers and taxis. High 15s in the quarter mile in 1997 wasn't bad but it wasn't great either. What I don't fully agree with is that the 4.6 3V was bad as that was a pretty reliable engine. The 5.4 3V's were hot garbage with their near guaranteed cam phaser issues. My problem with the 4.6 is that it just didn't make enough power for it's size prior to 1999. When it was introduced in the Mustang in 1996 is made 215 hp. At that time the F-body twins made 285 hp with their LT1 and that jumped to 305 in 98 with the LS1. 215/4.6 = 46.7 hp per liter 285/5.7 = 50 hp per liter For a "modern" OHC engine to have a lower specific output compared to a pushrod engine that has it's roots from the 50s was just sad. This is why I say 250 hp should have been the basement for the 4.6. Ford finally figured it out in 1999 but then the use of the plastic intake manifold proved to be problematic. That problem has nothing to do with the power the engine generated rather a poor design for the manifold.

[@Skyisthelimit4me]

@@black4vcobra Again, the 4.6 was not underpowered and nobody ever complained about it. For those who wanted more, they stepped up to the 32 valve 4.6. Idk if you forgot, the 4.6 replaced the 4.9 in the 1991 Lincoln Town Car. The 1990 Lincoln Town Car out out 160hp with single exhaust and 170hp with dual exhaust from the 4.9. the 4.6 put out 190hp with single exhaust and 210hp with dual exhaust. GM's 5.0 put out 170hp and the non LT1 5.7 put out 185hp-200hp for comparison. That said the 4.6 WAS NOT UNDERPOWERED. The 4.6 also had timing chain issues and piston ring issues. The more powerful 4.6 with 224hp-239hp had more timing chain issues due to the increased power putting more stress on the tensioners and guides. Like I said, once you add more power it becomes more unreliable. The original 4.6 also used a belt driven cooling fan as well which is a lot better than the electric fan it was replaced with. Superior cooling and ac performance at low speeds and idling with that setup. And they could tow 5,000lbs. Can't get a new car with 700hp to tow 5,000lbs can ya? Lol.

[@Skyisthelimit4me]

0-60 in 7.5sec, damn 🔥🔥🔥🔥. All the other V8 MN12's do it in 8.5-9sec. I remember Ford made some subtle changes to the 4.6 in these for 1996 but it boosted low end torque from 265 ft/lbs to 280 ft/lbs with a lower peak. There was an optional Sport Pkg that included larger wider 16" wheels on low profile 225/60 series tires, bigger brakes from the Mark VIII and some stiffer suspension bits from the retired SuperCoupe that came with a higher rear axle ratio of 3.27. I wish they had tested that one along side it to show the difference in handling, braking & acceleration. As a matter of fact, that red ThunderChicken you see in the beginning of the video is an LX Sport, goddammit John why didn't you test that one? The white one was just an LX with a popular prefered equipment pkg with the 3.08 rear axle ratio on 15" wheels with 215/70 series tires. Fun fact: the dual center taillamp applique's light up when the running lights are on, they're dual purpose neons when lit and DOT reflectors when off. God i miss these cars!

[@nathanlopez5667]

Basically the same motor as the 4.6 Mustang of the same year and just a tick slower because of the weight couldn't imagine doing a gear swap to about 373 or 410 the car wood dip into the 14s I'm sure I have the same car and it feels pretty Pepe for what it is

[@Skyisthelimit4me]

@@nathanlopez5667 It's not the same motor, but they are similar. The Mustang 4.6 has what it takes to sustain high rpm operation, the 4.6 that went into large cars does not. It was designed to be operated with an automatic transmission. Different valve springs. Different oil pan. One has an oil cooler, the other does not. Stuff like that.

[@nathanlopez5667]

@@Skyisthelimit4me I never knew that makes sense same architecture but yeah I get what you're saying what about the later Crown Vics with the pi Motors is that the same as the Mustang?

[@Skyisthelimit4me]

@@nathanlopez5667 Yeah the Modular 4.6 & 5.4 V8's are modular. That means they could be custom tailored per application, or that they are built application specific. So was the 302 & 351 engines they replaced.

[@Skyisthelimit4me]

@@nathanlopez5667 No, not the same. Similar sure but not exactly the same. The 4.6 in the Panthers with performance improvement heads was more similar to the 4.6 that went into the redesigned 2002 Explorer/Mountaineer than the Mustang, minus the belt driven cooling fan.

[@adamg85]

Love these reviews!

[@fernandorocha-dx1wv]

I love and watch Motor Week Retro Reviews since September 2009

[@carexpertandy]

The final year of this generation, and then the name went on hiatus until the new retro style was released for model year 2002.

[@RetroCarsForever]

2:39 Wow, the suspension is so soft you can SEE the ABS pumping the car up and down!

[@Skyisthelimit4me]

The suspension on these is actually very firm. What you saw was the brake proportioning valve doing what it's supposed to do, balancing braking pressure front to rear to keep the rear wheels from locking. It's weird how it works but it kept all the wheels rotating.

[@steveespinola7652]

Best looking Thunderbird in my opinion.

[@kennethduarte9605]

My dad leased a ‘97 T-Bird LX V6 back in the day. We had no issues with it, only thing that went wrong with was 1 burnt out brake light bulb, that’s it. It was a beautiful laser red with a tan cloth interior. Our family loved it but we needed a sedan for our family. My dad then made a huge mistake….. we got a ‘99 Chrysler Concorde LXI… exact opposite of the T-Bird reliability wise. Ate 3 transmissions and the last one was on its final legs and literally gave out during the appraisal for a new Tahoe. My dad was done with it and took the hit on it just to make it go away. It also had numerous trim and fit issues and the driver side window repeatedly fell off its track and the dealer service experience was even worse. Complete junk that car was.

[@michaelhoard9548]

I had the mercury version, the cougar

[@judethaddaeus9742]

They asked if the Thunderbird would survive, and thought it would. 1997 would be its last year on the market before going on hiatus and briefly turning back into a slow selling 2-seat roadster again.

[@curtiswritt8474]

Nice Thunderchicken!

[@citrine65]

Still have my 97 TBird LS. Prairie Tan. It needs alot of work but I can't part with it.

[@nickn815]

I had a white ‘96 I miss it as I haven’t driven a car remotely like it since

[@claybarnett6350]

The misfitting taillamp on the left side would make me crazy.

[@Skyisthelimit4me]

The taillamp is not misfit, the rubber decklid leveling grommet on the underside of the trunk lid just needs to be adjusted.

[@BraveBlueSnowTundra94GP]

Great review for 97', any reviews on the 89' or 90'?

[@nathanlopez5667]

There is for 1989 and 1991 and also 1994

[@Skyisthelimit4me]

There's a lot of reviews for the first gen MN12. Copy and paste this in the search bar & they'll popup - MotorWeek Ford Thunderbird

[@JeffJordan-or5gw]

Damn even in 97 dude said the interior looks dated

[@twinentryturbo]

If i was rich, id buy this and drive around in this car to keep people from having any clue i am rich.

[@thewiseguy3529]

Exactly what I do lol

[@76TomD]

Had one

[@stevegungel787]

The Sport Package should have been a supercharged V8

[@Epotheros]

Ford did make two experimental "SVE" Thunderbirds. One with a N/A 4.6L 4valve modular and the other with a supercharged 4.6L 4 valve. The supercharged motor even made it into production by powering the 03 and 04 SVT Cobras.

[@davidsoto7114]

Nothing special

[@Skyisthelimit4me]

It is special because this, & the Cougar, were the last affordable V6/V8 rear wheel drive personal luxury coupes. Their bigger more expensive brother hung on for one more model, 1998 Lincoln Mark VIII. You gotta learn your automotive history. "Nothing special" gtfoh.