From MSNBC.com:

Hmm... sucks for thunderbird lovers...

 

...i never thought much of the car anyways. more of a hype related thing than anything else...

 

Well I sat in one the other day at ford, I don't see anything interesting, it's not comforatable, it's not abundantly featured, it's bland and boring. I'd rather and I'm sure others something like an S2000 or even a mustang convertible to that thing.

 

...i think you hit the nail on the head there Wing.

 

Maybe it was a last request of a retiring executive wanting to re-live his youth by reviving the car. I agree, it's time for Ford to back-off on the retro designs after the 2005 Mustang and GT-40.

 

Good riddance. What a waste of development money.

 

In my opinion, all the stuff that made the old T-birds interesting and beautiful was left out of the new T-bird. The new ones are just so *yawn.* They can't sell it because it's practical, and it has no "spice," so what's the hook?

 

I think the new T-bird styling is cool, and it has a nice 3.9 liter V-8.

But you get a 3800 pound car with a 280 horsepower/285 torque engine for a base price of $37,000. Nissan
G-35 coupe 280/270, same space, lighter, nicer interior, base price $30K. It's not much of a deal, methinks.

Last year, you didn't have the G-35 providing such a painful counterfoil. But you did have an engine with about 30 less horsepower and torque, and a hefty dealer markup.

If the car cost $27K-$32K, I think it would sell like hot cakes. I don't know anything about car manufacturing, but I would think that lowering the cost to that level would bump up sales enough to counter the lower margins.

What do you guys think?

 

Does anyone else agree that the whole "retro" styling fad just means that the designers are creatively bankrupt? I don't think it helped much either that the T-Bird looks like the Beetle.

 

I really like retro styling, if it's done right. I think the new T-bird looks sweet, except for in light blue and a few other colors.

I think Ford's biggest mistake with the upcoming redesign of the Mustang is that they aren't making it the spitting image of the '66 model. I'd love to drive around a car that looks like it was designed in the late 60s but accelerates, sips gas, handles, and has a safety rating like one from today.

What I don't like is the half-retro thing going on. The Mustang redesign at the auto shows looks half retro and half new age, and I think the mix is ugly. Same with several other cars.

 

New T-Bird is retro fugly with fuglier wheels. They had a good idea but didn't deliver a good product.

The new Mustang on the other hand seems to be done right. In person (if they actually produce the show car version) the car looks awesome. A very good blend of old to new...Retro...

 

They had retro buzz about the car and thought they had a niche.
Some production problems with motors at teh time delayed the 2nd and 3rd shipments. People who wanted them couldnt get them. Matkup occured. Then when motor production got into full swing again dealerships had the cars....and the buzz was already dead.

Not to mention the shitty price.

I read somewhere that the average Thunder-turd was sitting on a dealer lot for an average of 4-5 months before the sale.

Now with the downfall Ford tries to save face by saying "We anticipated this to only be a limited production car for 4 years in the beginning".

Yeah right, If they were selling they would be making them.

FFS ford admit it and move on. The window was missed.

 

I think dealer markups helped kill the car. A lot of people take offense and forget about the car rather than wait for one. If they sold them at MSRP, perhaps some people would still be waiting.

I was at my Mini dealer Saturday and my salesperson was telling me about a guy who paif $5k over for his new S2000 in 2001. It is worth $23-$24k now. The guy was incredulous at the trade value, but they told him, we see 4-5 of them at the auction and that is what they are going for. Why should we give you any more?

Anyone who pays over MSRP for any car is a FOOL. I will not do business with any dealer that asks for a markup on any car on their lot. Friends of mine wanted to buy an Accord. There were two Honda dealers I could send them to: one that asked $5,000 over MSRP for an S2000, one that always sold the S2000s for MSRP + tax and tags, no add-ons. "We are in this for the long haul, and we want to take care of our customers so they come back, whether they buy an S2000 or a Civic" said the second dealer. "We have a no markup policy at all of our dealerships. The most anyone ever pays is MSRP."

Where do you think I sent my friends to get their Accord?

 

I hear that.

I often think that a dealer who dealt fairly with customers would have to get enough profits from referrals and repeat business to make up for the short term gain other dealers get from screwing people. Whether it works that way in practice, I can't say.