TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 20 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The Edmunds list of worst cars ever made...



Number 69: 1989 Ford Thunderbird

Edmunds said:
69. 1989 Ford Thunderbird: It was too big, much too heavy and too expensive to produce. Initially available only with V6 engines, it was slow, too. It's the car that killed the T-Bird.
They have got to be kidding.... :eek: :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,111 Posts
Lame. If they are going to take that attitude, about the MN12, they could have picked the lowliest of the low...base model n/a 3.8 bird with NO options...and there is nothing "bad" about that car, just not fancy, and not that fast/powerful.

Name another reasonably priced RWD independant suspension full sized luxury touring coupe available...before, then, or currently?

There aren't any.

Edmonds....They're on glue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
833 Posts
Lame. If they are going to take that attitude, about the MN12, they could have picked the lowliest of the low...base model n/a 3.8 bird with NO options...and there is nothing "bad" about that car, just not fancy, and not that fast/powerful.

Name another reasonably priced RWD independant suspension full sized luxury touring coupe available...before, then, or currently?

There aren't any.

Edmonds....They're on glue.

With a side of paint chips. I have a 89 SC and I love my car
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,820 Posts
Just another "journalists" top whatever list, bleh...

The thing that contradicts that statement about the 89 is right here

51. 1958 Ford Thunderbird: The delicate, elegant and sweet two-seat original T-Bird is replaced by this clumsy, massive, overwrought four-seater. Unfortunately it's hugely popular.
So they feel the 89 is bad because it killed the Thunderbird they hate anyway, the 58, which essentially made the Thunderbird the commercial success it was :rolleyes:
 

·
WOT Junkie and avid corn burner
Joined
·
3,734 Posts
Same crap, different day. I'm not surprised at all.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,820 Posts
Name another reasonably priced RWD independant suspension full sized luxury touring coupe available...before, then, or currently?
Better yet name the competition, the W bodies. Those were such well conceived cars with such excellent stratagy... "Hey let's put all our eggs into one basket, avoid being revolutionary in any way by mixing in a little bit of all of our other half assed chassis in the 80s and market them as identical coupes only for a few years before coming out with sedans later.":rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Just another "journalists" top whatever list, bleh...

The thing that contradicts that statement about the 89 is right here



So they feel the 89 is bad because it killed the Thunderbird they hate anyway, the 58, which essentially made the Thunderbird the commercial success it was :rolleyes:
I agree with what they wrote about my car, but I come to a different conclusion. It cost too much to make because it was better than the competition and better than it needed to be, it went above and beyond expectations. Yes in stock form my V6 is underpowered but the platform is there and Ford went on to fix that. The Super Coupe ran circles around and straight lines ahead of nearly all 80s performance cars...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,820 Posts
Well that's going into it from a performance perspective, half the cars on his best list are slow, and frankly so were all the Tbirds prior to the MN12. The Thunderbird was never meant to be a performance car so the slowness of the lesser models certainly wasn't any kind of death blow. It's simply that coupes had been consistently losing popularity since downsizing and any kind of performance, straight line or cornering, is totally lost on the average consumer. The MN12 tried to change that by being a budget Benz or Bimmer but failed due to the market decline that even they were experiencing.

6 cylinders were also kind of the way things were going back then as well, V8s were thought of as obsolete by the whole industry at the start of the platforms development, hence the abundance of turbo cars throughout the decade from virtually every manufacturer. The SC was a big step above those in general driving due to the roots SC

The MN12s development cost problem stemmed from the internal idea that it could replace the Panther as a sedan in the future and possibly other models. I bet a big chunk of the (over)budget came from developments that never saw the light of day or components that were developed for adaption into unrelated future models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Motor Trend thought differently. They made the 1989 Thunderbird SC The Car Of The Year.
Yep, I have this on my wall behind my computer monitor:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,996 Posts
Here is the rest of the list..

http://www.insideline.com/features/100-worst-cars-of-all-time.html

Some of these cars listed are easy to pick on.

The MN12 doesn't belong on the list in my opinion. They made them better as time goes on. I was pulling parts off of a 1989 Base Thunderbird. It is not fancy at all for sure. It was so stripped that it came with its own poll (bad joke, sorry). I did like the rear seat in that one, it didn't have the center armrest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Here is the rest of the list..

http://www.insideline.com/features/100-worst-cars-of-all-time.html

Some of these cars listed are easy to pick on.

The MN12 doesn't belong on the list in my opinion. They made them better as time goes on. I was pulling parts off of a 1989 Base Thunderbird. It is not fancy at all for sure. It was so stripped that it came with its own poll (bad joke, sorry). I did like the rear seat in that one, it didn't have the center armrest.
Mine doesnt either, but it does have the auto mirror, auto headlights, VMM, power seats... its relatively well equipped for 1989. My 2004 Mustang GT is loaded and it doesnt have any of those things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,634 Posts
I think it's funny that you guys are all getting your panties in a bunch over this article. These guys clearly don't know what they are talking about.

On one hand, they say that the 89 tbird sucks because it doesn't do what it was supposed to do well (grand tourer). Given the power to weight of this car, I may be inclined to agree.

However, on the other hand, they decry the Ariel Atom for doing EXACTLY what it was designed to do -- be a track car. Or, the BMW Isetta (designed as cheap post-WW2 transportation as Germany was rebuilding).

It's like the author was schizophrenic... like crazy guy who walks around SF with a sign claiming that Bill Clinton, in league with the 12 Galaxies, is messing with his head. Or, to simplify things, most of the "Occupyiers". You can safely ignore them as irrelevant.

PS. The one value of this article are that there are some hilarious cars I didn't know about on here... like the 2011 Aston Martin Cygnet. That alone may be worth flipping through.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,902 Posts
Edmunds sucks. I have hated them ever since I found out that the insurance company figures out what my car is worth by figuring their value into the average. Their numbers were extremely low, compared to others. :( Sounds like they are just some MN12 haters.

It was the Contour based Cougar that really disappointed, IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,996 Posts
Speaking on Contour, I didn't see that one on the list!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,634 Posts
Edmunds sucks. I have hated them ever since I found out that the insurance company figures out what my car is worth by figuring their value into the average. Their numbers were extremely low, compared to others. :( Sounds like they are just some MN12 haters.

It was the Contour based Cougar that really disappointed, IMO.
On the flip side, as a buyer, the very same Edmunds data is good because I would claim that their number is accurate and the seller's price isn't in-line with the market. They are just another datapoint. I actually like their reviews for new cars -- they don't hesitate to point out flaws which other reviewers (esp enthusiast car mags) like to gloss over.

-g
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,401 Posts
Speaking on Contour, I didn't see that one on the list!
Heavy, no engine, no room for an engine.

And it's front wheel drive.

(I have one of these...)

Anyone know of a good forum for these? I need to find out what the differences are in the car I have; it's an oddball. (I have a late 99 SE with a 4 cylinder.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,996 Posts
http://www.contour.org/ is supposed to be the best one.

Another one that should be on a list.. Chevy Malibu 1997-2003. What a horrible car.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,898 Posts
http://www.contour.org/ is supposed to be the best one.

Another one that should be on a list.. Chevy Malibu 1997-2003. What a horrible car.
*blink* Mine, with over 300,000 miles on it, would beg to differ with you :tongue:

Well, actually, my wife's. Bought the Cougar for her, but she prefers the Malibu. Go figure.

RwP
 
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Top