Thanks for uploading these. They are little gems. Kudos should go to Mayer for being able to fit a fairly comprehensive review into such a compact segment each time. Surely customers weren't so amused with their new cars exhibiting all those flaws and sloppy assembly, but it does provide an entertaining look into the (not so recent) past when U.S. auto makers were struggling with just about everything: labor troubles, crushing and contradictory government regulations, fuel crisis, lack of direction, inept management, the list goes on and on. On top of that, for the first time in history, genuine competition emerged from abroad, highlighting the traditional shortfalls of Detroit products to the point of turning legions of formerly loyal customers off and away, many of them for good. This T-bird serves as a prime example of the devolution of Detroit. Just a decade or so prior, Thunderbirds and their counterpart Rivieras, Toronados, Eldorados et al were sleek space age machines, beautifully styled, bold and expressive, with clean lines and restraint in the use of trim, all executed in good taste. By 1976, the same basic concept had degenerated into an insufferably tacky parade of kitsch. Fake wire wheel covers, ridiculous padded coach roofs, embossed vinyl appliqués, a mess of cheesy pin striping and two-tone paints as gaudy as Tammie Fae Bakker's awful make-up all hastily thrown together to disguise the underlying degradation in performance and substance. What a difference 10 years made....
Agreed the American cars of the 60's were some of the best styled machines. A decade later everything was bulkier, heavier and the styling just got more tacky. It didn't seem to make sense really, styling should've been moving ahead from that point.Handling wasn't great, primitive emissions controls strangled more and more horepower from these big block engines.
Harsh. But you’re not wrong. I love the 70s and even the malaise motors bc it’s what I grew up on. But objectively, I know these cars were giant overstuffed bourgeoise crap.
Wow, it's just like my college professor told me a few years ago, American new car dealers in the 70s were basically expected to complete a car's assembly, by installing missing screws, bolts, and other parts, and by repairing factory defects (Nevermind the numerous warranty repairs a car dealer would eventually have to do after actually selling that car). And what's even sadder is that, in the 70s, American car makers had significantly increased the number workers at the end of the assembly lines whose sole job was to inspect vehicles and repair any defects, before a vehicle was shipped out, precisely to address Detroit's increasingly dismal reputation for quality. All to no avail. Nowadays, I don't think there are many issues with regards to the assembly of American cars; rather, I think there are still issues with regards to the quality and durability of parts used, particularly engine parts and suspension components.
I remember seeing a '75 Malibu that had just arrived, sitting in the service area and the doors were hanging limp, as if the people at the factory didn't have time to align them. It wasn't just American cars, though; Datsuns used to arrive without all the trim, and the dealers were not exactly fine craftsmen when it came to installing it.
My mother had this same car in 76 when I was a kid. Hers was exceptional with none of the issues found on this one. However, the electronic ignition was terrible. She was stranded on the road side 2 different times because of the module being faulty. Otherwise, a very beautiful car.
It's incredible to see how far American cars have come in terms of build quality and fit and finish. You would NEVER see a Ford car today with those kinds of especially glaring fit and finish issues.
My parents bought a Toyota Celica GT in 1977. It was perfect from the get go. No loose panels, squeaks and rattles or crappy paint. It's not wonder the Japanese captured so much of the market when the Big Three would putting out turds like that.
With their quality? Oh please, they marked the way for the blandest life you'll ever see. And this is one automobile, not all of them. And apperentally you dumbasses don't realize just how good that side to side cone test is, for a 18 foot 78 wide full sized sedan that has a wheelbase almost near the length of a bus away.
I, recall my uncle having the EXACT CAR COLOR COMBO &ALL. It was a fine car, I, drove a '76 Buick Electra LANDAU coupe 225. Fully equipped, ASTROROOF, power everything, limited slip axle, fiber optic lamp monitors, cornering lamps, rally wheels, vogue tyres, vinyl interior, & just topped $9k. The T-BIRD isolated you better than my deuce & a quarter. But, my BUICK handled,& accelerated better. Even, in vanilla form the Buick 455CID -4bbl was the way to go. Better MPG'S also. It would kick the 460cid 4v in the .......
During that period, Ford isolated occupants from both sound and feel better than GM or Chrysler. The Thunderbird and Lincolns of the period were unmatched for quiet, soft ride. GM cars, however, always handled better (because of the stiffer suspension).
Ford never was as good as GM. GM ruled thru the 70s and even into the 80s. However this is too negative of a review for even a Ford. I never knew anyone bitch so much about this car in the 70s. Rarely had any problems with my folks 98 or Toronado‘s in the 1970s because they just didn’t break
A lot of 1970s cars had mushy handling, but damn, that hood must have been a PIA. I had a 1973 Cadillac, a slightly longer, heavier car, but the hood was considerably shorter than that thing, which houses a lot of air, or what Ford considered a crush zone. Every left turn must have been an adventure with either the '72-'76 T-Bird or the Mark-IV and V.
No, it's not just you. Automobiles produced in the mid to late 70's, in fact, in to the early 80's, had abominable build qualities. Late 60's and early 70's cars were better in terms of production quality, in MY opinion.
@@thecardsaysmoops I know vehicles built from 1973 onward suffered from emission control devices, smog pumps and inferior quality compared to vehicles built from the mid 1960's to the early 1970's, I know if I want a classic car it has to be a 1972 or earlier model year.
I still have a copy of Consumer Reports my parents had from 1969, with a test of "middle-priced" full-sized cars. The GM cars shed things like window cranks and AC vent louvers, the Mercury had brake and engine defects that called the validity of the test into question and the Chrysler Newport had a rear baffle intended for a New Yorker, with holes for the light wiring enlarged with the help of a vice grip, leaving dangerous leaks and sharp edges. The GM cars were also judged as 5, rather than 6 passengers, because the middles of the rear seats were so thinly padded. From what I've read, cars from the 1950s were not put together much better. I think that once Detroit started pushing annual styling changes for the sake of change and long option lists, build quality went down the drain.
The TBird was overly bloated by that time. The lack of roll-down rear quarter windows was a cost cutting measure that all American manufacturers were doing at the time. Fit and finish was typical of that era.
“In our opinion, the engine in our test Thunderbird was badly out of tuned. I hesitated under acceleration, knocked loudly and emitted a putrid odor from the car’s catalytic converter.” What can I say, typical Ford.
I assume Ford had to ship them that way to pass the emissions tests; I remember getting a ride to Sunday school on a cold morning in a '71 or '72 Maverick with a 302. It should have had plenty of pep, but it could barely make it up a hill with the pedal floored. Ford almost had to halt production of some models in, I think, the fall of 1973 and their 250 CI 6 lost almost 30 HP from '73 to '75 while GM's 250 kept its 100 or so HP all through the 1970s. Ford must not have planned ahead for the regulations that were on the way.
I guess I will never understand why quality was never, ever a priority with American car companies. I mean, VW ran that ad entitled "Lemon" in the 1960s pointing out that one of their cars did not meet quality standards, so it's not like this was rocket science to figure out what consumers wanted.
It's just sad how Detroit basically gave away the show. Any wonder that almost anything with decent quality would come along and grab marketshare. It wasn't just OPEC; it was executives (and workers) who simply didn't care and thought they had a lock on the market.
Something of an LTD / victoria with special window and light adornments. 1975 was a bad year for smog equipment; still, 10 MPG is something else. There's a lot I don't miss about that era.
The Thunderbird was a higher level than LTD, as it was Ford Division's flagship product. It was built on the same chassis as the Mark and was built in the same factory. That factory (Wixom) was considered the crown jewel as it was the only factory that built Lincolns and Thunderbirds. So for the quality of your highest product from your best factory on a car that was given to the press for evaluation, speaks volumes about the industry at that time.
In my opinion.. GM built better big cars/ midsize cars than Ford during this period. My father's new 76 Buick didn't have the quality problems like this TBird. The 350 V8 ran great.
How could the trunk be too small to handle all of the luggage? I could understand if a small economy car had a small trunk, but this was an enormous land yacht!
This was considered more of a luxury personal car, so the trunk was only designed to haul golf clubs or enough for two. It was really not a family car.
Exactly what took up all the space that this behemoth occupied? Given that owning a land yacht meant having to put up with terrible fuel economy and more difficult parking, it should have at least provided something in return, like superior cargo room and acres of legroom.
@@jasonhsu4711 It was basically a big Mustang, expanding on the long hood short deck concept. This car was all about the look and usually driven alone or a man and his wife, usually the second wife who was younger and hotter than the first one. The back seats were there for the every other weekend that dad had to visit his kids from the first marriage. Like a lot of 70s land yachts, there was probably a huge amount of wasted space in front of the radiator, lots of space under the hood and the distance between the cowl and front of the dash was immense as well. I'm sure that NBA players could ride in comfort in the front seats. However, in addition to the smallish trunk, the back seats while okay, would not have the amount of room you would expect in a car this size. The Lincoln Continental while also a land yacht, managed the space better.
@@kennethsouthard6042 clearly you don't understand size here, the Thunderbird was not a full sized like how a Chrysler, Oldsmobile, or Lincoln was. If you see fellas standing next to it you'd get the idea. What you need is a 1972-4 Thunderbird. Those were the biggest. Also taller.
Typical of the poor quality of that time for domestic makers, not just Ford. This is a brand new upscale car and he is already mentioning squeaks in the dash.
@@WitchKing-Of-Angmar I remember the cars of the 70s quite well. The build quality from all the domestic auto makers wad shoddy overall. Today’s cars have their own annoyances but are far better built and safer.
@@jhancock1575 your first mistake was saying cars of the 70's, every year was different and quality decreased in every form because of the Oil crisis and gas cut for heating as well. you can't just say a traveler business coupé from the 1930's, since they were invented mid way through the 1930's, made by Ford first. And design changed drastic, especially for Lincoln..went from taller and form fitting, to resembling more of a limousine by the end of the 1975-78 time frame, short and hardly imposing. They clearly cared more about the Mark V than the Continental Sedan. Same with Cadillac, boy that thing got short feeling which ruins the massive size. And one of the largest automobiles, a 1967 Oldsmobile Holiday 98 sedan was 81 inches wide and 230 inches long (5th place to Oldsmobile in the 70's, Mercury Montcalm, Imperial LeBaron, and the 1973 Cadillac, but incredible for width)
Typical Ford of the era: Sloppy steering, sloppy handling, sloppy fit, sloppy carburetion and overall, just a a heap. Not that GM was any better back then, but they were the better of the lot among the (then) Big 4.
The Ford Motor Company should be ashamed to shipped this expensive, top of the line product - car to their dealerships .. with all the quality problems it had. Didn't anyone checked the cars before they shipped them out to the dealerships ?
Anybody that doesn't think cars have come a long way in 45 years, watch this video. Absolutely unacceptable levels of fit and finish by today's standards (somebody forgot to put screws in the trunk??), and handling and economy were obviously not considerations for the target market. This was a luxury car costing the same as a mid-size Lexus or Mercedes today when adjusted for inflation, and it would be hard to conceive buying a modern new car and having the kind of quality flaws this Lincoln had. I won't even mention performance except to say that this car's acceleration would be bested by just about every new car on sale in 2020. About the only thing the Lincoln would have scored well at was comfort (look at those sumptuous seats!) and its sheer imposing size.
1. This was a Ford, not a Lincoln. Lincolns did have better quality control during this era much Cadillac and before their demise, Imperial did. 2. Performance between then now and now is completely at opposite ends. Cars from 1973-85ish had decreasing all the way to zero performance. Automakers were working to comply with government emissions and safety regulations and later in the '70s - fuel economy mandates. Quality and performance were literally thrown out the window for the mass production cars and the Thunderbird was in that mix. Cars in this era were built towards luxury and being a quiet riding car to isolate the bumps from you. Some were better than others, but unfortunately most were built pretty crappily. Just the times
@@1983jblack Not sure why I said it was a Lincoln - clearly Thunderbird was a Ford product although the Lincoln Continental Mark IV was a related vehicle. Maybe I was dazzled by the vast array of features on this car, like the auto headlights and power lumbar seats. I disagree about Lincoln quality being any better though, the cars were designed by the same people using the same manufacturing lines, and with Lincolns being more complex with even more features, you could argue they were actually worse than the Fords. I can't speak to the paint or fit and finish, but why would Lincoln have been any different? Regarding performance, again cars have come a long way in five decades. 50 years is a long time, but there are people out there who truly believe that the 1950s - early 1970s land yachts that dominated American roads were the pinnacle of automotive style and engineering. Style may be subjective but there is no arguing the fact that cars have evolved significantly under the skin since then....for the better. Much improved performance, safety, economy and convenience, not to mention the integration with modern technology, new cars are quite amazing actually. This Thunderbird is a dinosaur..it's fun to look back but I don't miss this period of American cars. (Next week's Aspen was another heap of crap foisted on the American buying public.If the K-car would eventually save Chrysler, then the Aspen/Volare had to have gone a long way to nearly bankrupting the company.)
@@RoadCone411 I agree that the late 70's cars were pretty shoddy. But I still love the old school land yachts. I had a 1978 Mercury Cougar Brougham ( the sister to this car ) and I absolutely loved it. I sold it to a friend who spent good money repainting it and put on a new vinyl 1/4 roof. It looked like it just left the showroom. He was coming home one evening from a car show and was t boned on the passenger side by a Honda Civic that ran a red light. The Honda driver had to be cut out of the car but my friend was ok except for bruised ribs and minor cuts. Needless to say the car was destroyed beyond repair. If anything else, these cars were built very solid and strong with thicker metal than what is used today. If my friend would have been in a newer car, he may have been killed.
@@RoadCone411 I agree that Caddys, Lincolns and Imperials shared some of the design and engineering problems of their cheaper siblings, but in general, the Big 3 made some effort to get them out with fewer petty defects. Maybe they just put the lower priced models through the line on Mondays and Fridays. It just makes business sense. Even some premium versions of cars from the other makes (like the Cosworth Vega) were noted for their superior build quality.
Thanks for uploading these. They are little gems. Kudos should go to Mayer for being able to fit a fairly comprehensive review into such a compact segment each time. Surely customers weren't so amused with their new cars exhibiting all those flaws and sloppy assembly, but it does provide an entertaining look into the (not so recent) past when U.S. auto makers were struggling with just about everything: labor troubles, crushing and contradictory government regulations, fuel crisis, lack of direction, inept management, the list goes on and on. On top of that, for the first time in history, genuine competition emerged from abroad, highlighting the traditional shortfalls of Detroit products to the point of turning legions of formerly loyal customers off and away, many of them for good.
This T-bird serves as a prime example of the devolution of Detroit. Just a decade or so prior, Thunderbirds and their counterpart Rivieras, Toronados, Eldorados et al were sleek space age machines, beautifully styled, bold and expressive, with clean lines and restraint in the use of trim, all executed in good taste. By 1976, the same basic concept had degenerated into an insufferably tacky parade of kitsch. Fake wire wheel covers, ridiculous padded coach roofs, embossed vinyl appliqués, a mess of cheesy pin striping and two-tone paints as gaudy as Tammie Fae Bakker's awful make-up all hastily thrown together to disguise the underlying degradation in performance and substance. What a difference 10 years made....
Agreed the American cars of the 60's were some of the best styled machines. A decade later everything was bulkier, heavier and the styling just got more tacky. It didn't seem to make sense really, styling should've been moving ahead from that point.Handling wasn't great, primitive emissions controls strangled more and more horepower from these big block engines.
Harsh. But you’re not wrong. I love the 70s and even the malaise motors bc it’s what I grew up on. But objectively, I know these cars were giant overstuffed bourgeoise crap.
Oh wow, that handling test! The car did not enjoy doing that at all.
I think Ralph explained who bought Thunderbirds in 1975: "Texans."
Wow, it's just like my college professor told me a few years ago, American new car dealers in the 70s were basically expected to complete a car's assembly, by installing missing screws, bolts, and other parts, and by repairing factory defects (Nevermind the numerous warranty repairs a car dealer would eventually have to do after actually selling that car). And what's even sadder is that, in the 70s, American car makers had significantly increased the number workers at the end of the assembly lines whose sole job was to inspect vehicles and repair any defects, before a vehicle was shipped out, precisely to address Detroit's increasingly dismal reputation for quality. All to no avail. Nowadays, I don't think there are many issues with regards to the assembly of American cars; rather, I think there are still issues with regards to the quality and durability of parts used, particularly engine parts and suspension components.
I remember seeing a '75 Malibu that had just arrived, sitting in the service area and the doors were hanging limp, as if the people at the factory didn't have time to align them. It wasn't just American cars, though; Datsuns used to arrive without all the trim, and the dealers were not exactly fine craftsmen when it came to installing it.
WOW @ that body roll! OMG! How did we survive this era as a species?
We were tougher back then.
Maybe you'll feel better in your Nissan Rogue going to the soccer game
My mother had this same car in 76 when I was a kid. Hers was exceptional with none of the issues found on this one. However, the electronic ignition was terrible. She was stranded on the road side 2 different times because of the module being faulty. Otherwise, a very beautiful car.
What a unit, would be great to have now.
It is great, I've a 73 Third and it is black over burgundy. These cars ride is incredible and very quiet in the cabin. Beautiful boulevard cruiser.
It's incredible to see how far American cars have come in terms of build quality and fit and finish. You would NEVER see a Ford car today with those kinds of especially glaring fit and finish issues.
In the thumbnail, the two tone paint almost makes it look like someone put the Thunderbird front clip on a Squire wagon.
My parents bought a Toyota Celica GT in 1977. It was perfect from the get go. No loose panels, squeaks and rattles or crappy paint. It's not wonder the Japanese captured so much of the market when the Big Three would putting out turds like that.
I remember in the early 80s the neighbor's son had one. It was all white. Nice car for being 10 years old in 1985.
brutal fit and finish, but nothing that couldn't be solved
Great video the good old days lol
I had a Mark V,and the seat had the power lumbar, a very nice feature.
Thunderturd😢
A brand new car with all of those issues...exactly Japan took over with their quality
With their quality? Oh please, they marked the way for the blandest life you'll ever see. And this is one automobile, not all of them. And apperentally you dumbasses don't realize just how good that side to side cone test is, for a 18 foot 78 wide full sized sedan that has a wheelbase almost near the length of a bus away.
love these.ty
These videos are gold
That's horrible. Nobody was checking for fit or finish in the factory. Crazy!!!!
Wow - I’m shocked about the quality control! No wonder ppl increasingly switched to German and Japanese cars…
I swear, every time I watch an episode of behind the wheel, I'm amazed at how much is wrong with the cars.
I, recall my uncle having the EXACT CAR COLOR COMBO &ALL. It was a fine car, I, drove a '76 Buick Electra LANDAU coupe 225. Fully equipped, ASTROROOF, power everything, limited slip axle, fiber optic lamp monitors, cornering lamps, rally wheels, vogue tyres, vinyl interior, & just topped $9k. The T-BIRD isolated you better than my deuce & a quarter. But, my BUICK handled,& accelerated better. Even, in vanilla form the Buick 455CID -4bbl was the way to go. Better MPG'S also. It would kick the 460cid 4v in the .......
During that period, Ford isolated occupants from both sound and feel better than GM or Chrysler. The Thunderbird and Lincolns of the period were unmatched for quiet, soft ride. GM cars, however, always handled better (because of the stiffer suspension).
Chryslers handled the best. GM took a little from both categories
Malaise era to the max
Ford never was as good as GM. GM ruled thru the 70s and even into the 80s. However this is too negative of a review for even a Ford. I never knew anyone bitch so much about this car in the 70s. Rarely had any problems with my folks 98 or Toronado‘s in the 1970s because they just didn’t break
The Auto Workers didn't care they were protected by the Union
very sadly true
Exactly!
$10, 537 was astronomical in 1975. For a Ford, mind you.
A lot of 1970s cars had mushy handling, but damn, that hood must have been a PIA. I had a 1973 Cadillac, a slightly longer, heavier car, but the hood was considerably shorter than that thing, which houses a lot of air, or what Ford considered a crush zone. Every left turn must have been an adventure with either the '72-'76 T-Bird or the Mark-IV and V.
Don't over exaggerate this, the turns were hardly bad. It passed through tight cone markings.
ill take one of those long hoods anyday over a hood on lumpy poop shaped thing that looks like everything else on the road.
Hey that was boss back in the day 👍🏾
Me gusta el carro
Is it just me or were vehicles built during the mid to late 1970's have worse quality control than the vehicles built in the late 1960's/early 1970's?
No, it's not just you. Automobiles produced in the mid to late 70's, in fact, in to the early 80's, had abominable build qualities. Late 60's and early 70's cars were better in terms of production quality, in MY opinion.
@@thecardsaysmoops I know vehicles built from 1973 onward suffered from emission control devices, smog pumps and inferior quality compared to vehicles built from the mid 1960's to the early 1970's, I know if I want a classic car it has to be a 1972 or earlier model year.
I still have a copy of Consumer Reports my parents had from 1969, with a test of "middle-priced" full-sized cars. The GM cars shed things like window cranks and AC vent louvers, the Mercury had brake and engine defects that called the validity of the test into question and the Chrysler Newport had a rear baffle intended for a New Yorker, with holes for the light wiring enlarged with the help of a vice grip, leaving dangerous leaks and sharp edges. The GM cars were also judged as 5, rather than 6 passengers, because the middles of the rear seats were so thinly padded. From what I've read, cars from the 1950s were not put together much better. I think that once Detroit started pushing annual styling changes for the sake of change and long option lists, build quality went down the drain.
That level of poor build quality was typical in the 1970s
The TBird was overly bloated by that time. The lack of roll-down rear quarter windows was a cost cutting measure that all American manufacturers were doing at the time. Fit and finish was typical of that era.
Yep 1975 had them and with the '77s on the way, Ford was cutting corners. Same goes for the Mark
“In our opinion, the engine in our test Thunderbird was badly out of tuned. I hesitated under acceleration, knocked loudly and emitted a putrid odor from the car’s catalytic converter.” What can I say, typical Ford.
I assume Ford had to ship them that way to pass the emissions tests; I remember getting a ride to Sunday school on a cold morning in a '71 or '72 Maverick with a 302. It should have had plenty of pep, but it could barely make it up a hill with the pedal floored. Ford almost had to halt production of some models in, I think, the fall of 1973 and their 250 CI 6 lost almost 30 HP from '73 to '75 while GM's 250 kept its 100 or so HP all through the 1970s. Ford must not have planned ahead for the regulations that were on the way.
I guess I will never understand why quality was never, ever a priority with American car companies. I mean, VW ran that ad entitled "Lemon" in the 1960s pointing out that one of their cars did not meet quality standards, so it's not like this was rocket science to figure out what consumers wanted.
Ford was really having serious quality control problems back then!
It's just sad how Detroit basically gave away the show. Any wonder that almost anything with decent quality would come along and grab marketshare. It wasn't just OPEC; it was executives (and workers) who simply didn't care and thought they had a lock on the market.
Something of an LTD / victoria with special window and light adornments. 1975 was a bad year for smog equipment; still, 10 MPG is something else. There's a lot I don't miss about that era.
The Thunderbird was a higher level than LTD, as it was Ford Division's flagship product. It was built on the same chassis as the Mark and was built in the same factory. That factory (Wixom) was considered the crown jewel as it was the only factory that built Lincolns and Thunderbirds.
So for the quality of your highest product from your best factory on a car that was given to the press for evaluation, speaks volumes about the industry at that time.
In my opinion.. GM built better big cars/ midsize cars than Ford during this period. My father's new 76 Buick didn't have the quality problems like this TBird. The 350 V8 ran great.
How could the trunk be too small to handle all of the luggage? I could understand if a small economy car had a small trunk, but this was an enormous land yacht!
Enormous land yacht - YES, but a very small trunk!
This was considered more of a luxury personal car, so the trunk was only designed to haul golf clubs or enough for two. It was really not a family car.
Exactly what took up all the space that this behemoth occupied? Given that owning a land yacht meant having to put up with terrible fuel economy and more difficult parking, it should have at least provided something in return, like superior cargo room and acres of legroom.
@@jasonhsu4711 It was basically a big Mustang, expanding on the long hood short deck concept. This car was all about the look and usually driven alone or a man and his wife, usually the second wife who was younger and hotter than the first one. The back seats were there for the every other weekend that dad had to visit his kids from the first marriage.
Like a lot of 70s land yachts, there was probably a huge amount of wasted space in front of the radiator, lots of space under the hood and the distance between the cowl and front of the dash was immense as well.
I'm sure that NBA players could ride in comfort in the front seats. However, in addition to the smallish trunk, the back seats while okay, would not have the amount of room you would expect in a car this size.
The Lincoln Continental while also a land yacht, managed the space better.
@@kennethsouthard6042 clearly you don't understand size here, the Thunderbird was not a full sized like how a Chrysler, Oldsmobile, or Lincoln was. If you see fellas standing next to it you'd get the idea. What you need is a 1972-4 Thunderbird. Those were the biggest. Also taller.
Meanwhile at Toyota headquarters 🤣
Toyota,Honda, Datsun were good at making small cars but they did have some problems too . The Japanese cars were very small in the mid 70's .
Typical of the poor quality of that time for domestic makers, not just Ford. This is a brand new upscale car and he is already mentioning squeaks in the dash.
Perhaps you'd like to witness the defects in a modern car too? Boy you'd be embarrassed.
@@WitchKing-Of-Angmar I remember the cars of the 70s quite well. The build quality from all the domestic auto makers wad shoddy overall. Today’s cars have their own annoyances but are far better built and safer.
@@jhancock1575 your first mistake was saying cars of the 70's, every year was different and quality decreased in every form because of the Oil crisis and gas cut for heating as well. you can't just say a traveler business coupé from the 1930's, since they were invented mid way through the 1930's, made by Ford first. And design changed drastic, especially for Lincoln..went from taller and form fitting, to resembling more of a limousine by the end of the 1975-78 time frame, short and hardly imposing. They clearly cared more about the Mark V than the Continental Sedan. Same with Cadillac, boy that thing got short feeling which ruins the massive size. And one of the largest automobiles, a 1967 Oldsmobile Holiday 98 sedan was 81 inches wide and 230 inches long (5th place to Oldsmobile in the 70's, Mercury Montcalm, Imperial LeBaron, and the 1973 Cadillac, but incredible for width)
Typical Ford of the era: Sloppy steering, sloppy handling, sloppy fit, sloppy carburetion and overall, just a a heap. Not that GM was any better back then, but they were the better of the lot among the (then) Big 4.
Way too many defects.
The Ford Motor Company should be ashamed to shipped this expensive, top of the line product - car to their dealerships .. with all the quality problems it had. Didn't anyone checked the cars before they shipped them out to the dealerships ?
Anybody that doesn't think cars have come a long way in 45 years, watch this video. Absolutely unacceptable levels of fit and finish by today's standards (somebody forgot to put screws in the trunk??), and handling and economy were obviously not considerations for the target market. This was a luxury car costing the same as a mid-size Lexus or Mercedes today when adjusted for inflation, and it would be hard to conceive buying a modern new car and having the kind of quality flaws this Lincoln had. I won't even mention performance except to say that this car's acceleration would be bested by just about every new car on sale in 2020.
About the only thing the Lincoln would have scored well at was comfort (look at those sumptuous seats!) and its sheer imposing size.
I agree to some extent, however new cars are so unattractive. They have zilch style.
1. This was a Ford, not a Lincoln. Lincolns did have better quality control during this era much Cadillac and before their demise, Imperial did.
2. Performance between then now and now is completely at opposite ends. Cars from 1973-85ish had decreasing all the way to zero performance. Automakers were working to comply with government emissions and safety regulations and later in the '70s - fuel economy mandates. Quality and performance were literally thrown out the window for the mass production cars and the Thunderbird was in that mix. Cars in this era were built towards luxury and being a quiet riding car to isolate the bumps from you. Some were better than others, but unfortunately most were built pretty crappily. Just the times
@@1983jblack Not sure why I said it was a Lincoln - clearly Thunderbird was a Ford product although the Lincoln Continental Mark IV was a related vehicle. Maybe I was dazzled by the vast array of features on this car, like the auto headlights and power lumbar seats. I disagree about Lincoln quality being any better though, the cars were designed by the same people using the same manufacturing lines, and with Lincolns being more complex with even more features, you could argue they were actually worse than the Fords. I can't speak to the paint or fit and finish, but why would Lincoln have been any different?
Regarding performance, again cars have come a long way in five decades. 50 years is a long time, but there are people out there who truly believe that the 1950s - early 1970s land yachts that dominated American roads were the pinnacle of automotive style and engineering. Style may be subjective but there is no arguing the fact that cars have evolved significantly under the skin since then....for the better. Much improved performance, safety, economy and convenience, not to mention the integration with modern technology, new cars are quite amazing actually. This Thunderbird is a dinosaur..it's fun to look back but I don't miss this period of American cars. (Next week's Aspen was another heap of crap foisted on the American buying public.If the K-car would eventually save Chrysler, then the Aspen/Volare had to have gone a long way to nearly bankrupting the company.)
@@RoadCone411 I agree that the late 70's cars were pretty shoddy. But I still love the old school land yachts. I had a 1978 Mercury Cougar Brougham ( the sister to this car ) and I absolutely loved it. I sold it to a friend who spent good money repainting it and put on a new vinyl 1/4 roof. It looked like it just left the showroom. He was coming home one evening from a car show and was t boned on the passenger side by a Honda Civic that ran a red light. The Honda driver had to be cut out of the car but my friend was ok except for bruised ribs and minor cuts. Needless to say the car was destroyed beyond repair. If anything else, these cars were built very solid and strong with thicker metal than what is used today. If my friend would have been in a newer car, he may have been killed.
@@RoadCone411 I agree that Caddys, Lincolns and Imperials shared some of the design and engineering problems of their cheaper siblings, but in general, the Big 3 made some effort to get them out with fewer petty defects. Maybe they just put the lower priced models through the line on Mondays and Fridays. It just makes business sense. Even some premium versions of cars from the other makes (like the Cosworth Vega) were noted for their superior build quality.
wow abysmal build quality!!! sheesh
Yuck, like an uncoolmobile for the person who needed a bigger Gremlin or Pacer! Instant Dork just add gasoline.
Fit and finish terrible.
Runs terrible too.