I have mixed feelings about the 2002-5 Ford Thunderbird. I am glad the automaker brought back the storied nameplate and think that this generation had a few interesting design touches. That said, the car strikes me as bigger than was appropriate for a two seater. That resulted in it looking like an embarrassing caricature of the original T-Bird.
Indeed, this car illustrates quite well the limitations of the “retro” design movement. Ford got some of the basic styling cues right while utterly failing to capture the essential sensibility of a 1955-57 Thunderbird.
Ford marketeers tried their best to evoke the original T-Bird’s charms with sensuous photography.
It sort-of worked — at least in the 2002 model year. Alas, Retro-Bird sales then shrank to such a low level that the car was discontinued after 2005. That effectively killed the Thunderbird nameplate.
Twenty years later I rarely come across a surviving Retro-Bird. Our featured car was about to be auctioned last summer at the LeMay Collections at Marymount. At least to my eyes it wasn’t the ideal specimen because of the black-on-red color combination.
Was the Retro-Bird all that bad?
One could counter that the Retro-Bird wasn’t all that much bigger than a 1957 model. It was only five inches longer (186.3 inches), which came entirely from a longer wheelbase (107.2 inches). Meanwhile, the width was less than an inch more (72 inches).
To my eyes the wheelbase is what most throws off the car’s proportions. Whereas the original Thunderbird’s doors were nestled close to the back wheels, the Retro-Bird’s doors — and greenhouse — are pushed well forward. In addition, the snout ahead of the cowl is shorter. This goes against the original T-Bird’s long hood, short-deck proportions.
So might the Retro-Bird have worked better if the wheelbase had been cut around five inches behind the seats? Coincidentally, the car in Motor Trend’s center spread had the page fold in just the right place to hint at what a shortened T-Bird might have looked like (Allison, 2002).
Let’s play with this idea a little more. What follows is a real Retro-Bird and a fake one with wheelbase-reduction surgery.
That strikes me as a much better stance for a two-seater, but it still looks portly. For example, the cab-forward windshield and thick C-pillar could have been shrunk a bit. And how about cutting the width by at least two inches? Look at the photo below that shows the thickness of the door.
Platform sharing led to design compromises
Of course, the Retro-Bird was limited by the components it was required to use — the DEW platform it shared with the Lincoln LS sedan and Jaguar S-Type. The Ford Mustang was also loosely based on it (Wikipedia, 2025). Perhaps not so coincidentally, the Retro-Bird had virtually the same wheelbase as the Mustang.
What I wonder is why Ford didn’t just make the Thunderbird a 2+2 if it was stuck with such a long wheelbase. That almost inevitably would have increased its sales and might have actually looked better.
Perhaps Ford management figured that a four-place T-Bird no longer penciled out and that a more retro two-seater with a removable top would be appealing. Yet somehow the Retro-Bird just didn’t have the same magic as a 1957 model — either on the outside or inside.
Ford head designer J Mays suggested that the design was “pretty darn modern. It’s very clean with little detailing. Ornate is retro.” He categorized the T-Bird as being only “40 percent retro” compared to the Chrysler PT Cruiser being “75 percent” and the Volkswagen New Beetle at “70 percent” (Allison, 2002; p. 43).
Do you agree with Mays’ assessment? I don’t consider ornateness to be a key aspect of retro design, nor do I find the T-Bird more modern than retro. The car’s signature features are very much grounded in the 1950s, such as the round head and taillights, the pontoon-style fender shoulders and the roof porthole.
Why wasn’t the T-Bird moved to Mustang’s platform?
The Retro-Bird may have primarily died because its factory and platform were on the chopping block, but Sajeev Mehta (2023) suggested that Ford could have switched the car to the Mustang’s platform and factory.
“But Ford’s new direction, The Way Forward, had no room for expensive tomfoolery: The company was hemorrhaging cash, putting up the crown jewels as collateral on $23.6 billion in loans, and fighting for its survival a mere three years before its GM and Chrysler counterparts declared bankruptcy,” Mehta (2023) concluded.
Also see ‘Older Ford Mustangs got too big but not the newer ones?’
That makes some sense, but even if Ford had been doing better financially it might have still pulled the plug. Production peaked in 2002 with over 31,000 T-Birds leaving the factory, but it was all downhill from there: Under 15,000 in 2003, roughly 13,000 in 2004 and a bit over 9,000 in 2005 (Thunderbird Specialities, 2025).
As a point of comparison, even in the four-seater’s final year of 1997, production almost hit 74,000 units. This was more than the two-seater’s entire four-year run. This brings us to a question Motor Trend asked in its first road test of the Retro-Bird: Was coming out with a two-seater “(b)rave, crazy, inspired, or stupid?” (Allison, 2002; p. 37).
Motor Trend’s question may have been pointed, but it was reasonable given the weak sales of previous, luxury-oriented U.S. two-seaters such as the Buick Reatta, Cadillac Allante and Chrysler TC.
Did the Retro-Bird need to be at least a 2+2?
I suspect so — particularly if the goal had been to keep the nameplate alive beyond that generation of models. Above you will find an example of how a four-seater could have been done without increasing the wheelbase. The greenhouse and the doors could use some more reshaping, but you get the general idea.
A four-place Retro-Bird could have been offered as a coupe as well as a convertible. They might not have had the cachet of a two-seater with a removable roof, but they could have better fit the DEW platform — and found a bigger market.
Also see ‘1959 Ford Thunderbird was a gimmicky but hugely important car’
One could argue that the retro look didn’t work nearly as well as the more contemporary styling of the Thunderbirds of the 1980s and 1990s. Perhaps, but as retros went it was relatively clean. For example, the rounded head and taillights were a refreshing change of pace and exceptionally well executed.
One downside: The porthole windows had a caricatured quality. However, they may have been considered mandatory by Ford’s catsup oracles because they were the Thunderbird’s single most famous styling cue. If that’s what it took to keep one of the most iconic automotive nameplates alive, so be it.
NOTES:
Specifications and production figures were from Automobile Catalog (2025), Flammang and Kowalke (1999), and Thunderbird Specialties (2025).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Allison, Wes; 2002. “2002 Ford Thunderbird: The next great American Classic?” Motor Trend. July issue: pp. 36-46.
- Automobile Catalog; 2025. “Full detailed specifications listing and photo gallery.” Accessed April 22.
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Mehta, Sajeev; 2023. “Ford’s 2002–05 Thunderbird could finally fly as a future classic.” Hagerty. Posted Sept. 18.
- Thunderbird Specialities, 2025. “Thunderbird Production – Feature Cars, Colors & Numbers.” Page accessed April 22.
- Wikipedia; 2025. “Ford Thunderbird.” Page last modified February 22.
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- Fordheritagevault.com: 2002 Ford Thunderbird
I think the 2002-05 T bird looks a little more like the early 60s bird than the first generation (except for the two seater part.)
Is it true the DEW platform was intended to be a global platform before they ditched the idea and in the case of the Mustang opted for the loosely related D2C platform?
Surely it was an oversight on Ford’s part to not add a passive provision where the DEW platform was capable of using a wider range of engines including the Modular V8 used by the likes of the Mustang and previous gen T-Bird? Never mind possibly even the Barra six as well if Ford did indeed plan for some version of DEW to be used in Australia.
Personally the front of the 2002 T-Bird provokes a strong negative reaction that makes one think whether other alternative styling proposals would have been more effective? The 2001 Ford Forty-Nine concept by Ghia for example features a more attractive retro front IMHO.
I get the sense Ford designers and project leaders didn’t just look back to the ‘55-‘57 Thunderbird styling, they reviewed the original’s evolution. The ‘55 model, to my eye, was the best looking of the series, but the long hood/short deck proportions didn’t suit the needs of the majority of the customers. The trunk was overwhelmed with the spare tire such that the requisite golf clubs and weekend luggage for two didn’t fit.
Ford’s quick solution was to install a “Continental” spare tire and bumper on all 1956 Thunderbirds. The solution was polarizing: to some it was elegant, to others it was ugly and inappropriate for a sporty ( not sports) car.
For 1957, with the mild restyling of the car, several inches were added aft of the rear wheels to provide a larger trunk, and the “Continental” tire became an option.
I suspect 40 some years later, Ford recalled this evolution of the first series of cars and made certain the trunk would not be an impediment to acceptance.
I do agree the proportions were awkward from some angles. I test drove an ‘04, and while the acceleration was adequate, the handling was sedan-like, and the interior felt like the Taurus parts bin had been raided one too many times. It felt as though Ford didn’t care enough to detail the interior to the extent a halo car should be.
Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be! I think of Bill Mitchell nostalgic for Hooper bodied Rolls Royces and signing off on the bustle back Seville. Those import buyers weren’t going to switch from Mercedes Benz to buy one of those! (See also boat tail Riviera, Chevy SSR pick up truck.)
My mom is in her eighties and her cohorts’ funerals have been sock hop 50s car themed. I am in my sixties and I don’t have much nostalgia for that entire period. I like watching Adam Wade’s classic car You Tube channel because those were the cars I remember seeing on the streets when I walked to school and the cars my parents bought. I think there’s going to be a generational course correction with classic car sales as the Boomers pass away.
There just weren’t that many buyers nostalgic enough for a resto mod Thunderbird.
A friend of ours has a beautiful one in teal, I’ve been lusting after it since I first saw it. I’d love to own it. Maybe I’m in the minority, I’m happy that Ford omitted the fender skirts and the Continental kit, I didn’t love those on the original. I like the design overall much better than the original. If I were buying an old Thunderbird, it would be a 65.
I think retro styling was more popular on lower priced cars like the New Beetle, PT Cruiser, Chevrolet HHR, and 2005-2014 Mustang than on higher priced cars. I think the 2002-5 Thunderbird was a mistake, and even a non-retro Thunderbird luxury coupe using the DEW98 platform would have failed.
I like the styling for the most part, and keeping it a two seater gave it a bit more cachet. I also like the teal color and the two tone interiors. The lift off port hole top gives it a strong link to the ’50’s models. My only beef and the reason that I wouldn’t buy one now, is because it shares the V8 that was used in the Jaguar. It is not a good engine with lots of problems reported and I doubt that it is long lived. If this Bird had a 4.6 like my ’96 Mustang I would buy one in a minute.
I strongly disagree. The 2003-2005 Thunderbird was / is a good car for its time, given its origins in the Ford 2000 plan of Alex Trotman, executed by Jacques “The Knife” Nasser. Remember, the highest-paid employee at Ford in 2000was Jaguar F1 driver Eddie Irvine ! Ford under Nasser was a mess, including Nasser disrupting Thanksgiving dinners with the Firestone side of the Ford family !
I think you have missed the number one reason sales fell off. It wasn’t styling. I remember it clearly as we were interested. ADM. Every dealer was trying to make a killing. Every one we saw had at least $1,000 in additional dealer markup. Some as much as $5,000 if memory serves. If the dealers had treated the Thunderbird like a Taurus, I think they would have ended up selling thousands more. This lasted through 2002 and into 2003 and until dealer stocks became bloated and Ford had to throttle back production. But by they those who were interested initially had lost interest even though discounts were now being offered.
Lastly, Ford should have given the Thunderbird a unique instrument panel instead of one from the LS. Thunderbirds always had very creative instrument panels. The Retro should have had one as well.
At least the 2002 Thunderbird had color and not just white, silver grey and black.
Your point is well taken about the markups. I will look into that when this story is reposted down the road.
This may be a good time to explain for new readers that when a feature is labeled “Fake Design” or “Design Notes” I will focus on styling. Sometimes I will do this because that’s all I want to write about, but there are other times where I am aware of other issues but have not been able to track down decent-enough documentation by the time I need to post a story. Going by memory or vague rumors can lead to errors.
When I repost stories I will usually expand them, so over time a story that started off only focusing on design could grow into a multi-faceted history piece. This approach allows me to post multiple stories a week within the time I have available to work on Indie Auto.