MN12 Hagerty article

Research the limitations on when you can drive it. Tennessee's law means you can only drive it on special occasions. Useless for me.
 
I read the reaction thread to this article in the Facebook group. The inadequate reading comprehension of some people shouldn't astound me anymore, but it does. Humanity's fucked.

The author owns a garageful of Fords from that era, including a 35th Anniversary SC and a Mark VIII, not that it necessarily makes much difference to his credibility on the subject.

Ford's executive leadership at the time was out of touch with the automotive enthusiast while also riding the hell out of the Explorer and the SUV trend. Then again, what modern day mainstream automotive executive gives a damn about enthusiasts anymore? In a sense, they were both simultaneously out of touch and ahead of the time.
 
Irv said:
I read the reaction thread to this article in the Facebook group. The inadequate reading comprehension of some people shouldn't astound me anymore, but it does. Humanity's fucked.

The author owns a garageful of Fords from that era, including a 35th Anniversary SC and a Mark VIII, not that it necessarily makes much difference to his credibility on the subject.

Ford's executive leadership at the time was out of touch with the automotive enthusiast while also riding the hell out of the Explorer and the SUV trend. Then again, what modern day mainstream automotive executive gives a damn about enthusiasts anymore? In a sense, they were both simultaneously out of touch and ahead of the time.
Click to expand...

I saw that too, one of the comments was “ what does a guy named “sajeev” know about American cars???” 🙄

I’m sure what people there would like to read is” how the MN12 Thunderbird is a overlooked 90s Muscle Car ICON and you’re a real manly man if you have one! Actual analysis of the industry and marketplace at the time? Pfft fake news!!!!
 
Kurt K said:
I know I'm biased, but I liked Hagerty's article from 2018 better.

Click to expand...

I think we’re all biased 😆 for me I’m just not afraid or too proud to accept that when new these really weren’t the smash success Ford expected them to be for the money invested. The fact that they were such an overengineered overbudget project is fascinating in its own right to me, and 30+ years later it’s moot anyway. The Explorer was a way better car for the business end of things but they’re absolutely repellant to me in literally every possible way.

70-74 Barracudas and Challengers were overbudget and unpopular in their day too, arguably a part of what lead to Chrysler’s near bankruptcy and bailout. Doesn’t hurt the cars desirability, as you may have noticed in their pricing for the last 20 years, it’s just a part of their legacy. It’s just absurd to pretend it wasn’t fact and attack those who fairly tell the truth of it
 
I love the 2nd gen explorer. I currently own 2 and have owned numerous ones over the years.
 
Probably unpopular opinion here.... but IMO these cars didn't sell well was because they were an antiquated design that Ford let come to fruit. They are a well-made 80's design that is unique; but they came from the old school idea that large sedans and coupes were still what buyers want. Those types of vehicles have been phasing out since the late 90s, and are about extinct these days.

Looking back, of course the Explorer was a bigger money maker. It came out when the population was finding that newer options are easier to get into with a family, better for daily driving, and had more efficiently designed interior space. The car market has evolved into almost everything being a SUV/CUV/Crossover these days for a reason.

As much as I love these cars, they are completely ridiculous in interior design efficiency and utility compared to a modern vehicle. MN12/FN10 is a great, well thought out platform that does many things well even today. But to most buyers back then and especially now, using one as a daily driver is choosing a handicap of a vehicle compared to the other choices available.
 
Last edited:
Kenz said:
The car market has evolved into almost everything being a SUV/CUV/Crossover these days for a reason.
Click to expand...

CAFE 😉

Beyond that child seat laws really were the nails in the coffin for the 2 door format. I don’t think the packaging is a handicap, not every SUV/crossover is occupied by a family of 5 with 2 dogs, people made due with coupes back when families on average were LARGER than today (in number, not volume, which we do have over them today lol). If you’re driving personal transport these are no less suited to the job than a Rav 4 outside of fuel efficiency which is a matter of technology not packaging. V6 Explorers from the 90s guzzled more fuel than a V8 MN12 by a noticeable margin too.

I can rant all day long about my bitter hatred of SUVs and crossovers, like in this day and age of home deliveries why you’d need the extra cargo area at all times over a sedans, or if the goal is practical packaging why exactly then is the minivan nearly as extinct as the coupe today? The actual most practical vehicle design ever made.
 
Going to disagree on it just being CAFE.... A MN12 equipped with a modern drivetrain would get better MPG than any generic blob of an SUV these days. The big automakers produce vehicles to make profit, and vehicles design changed because of that. While the government standards are a major influence, profit is of course the main objective.

I'm not trying to put down our vehicles, but they didn't sell well for a few reasons. One of those major reasons IMO being interior design and efficiency. The average compact/mid size rental car these days, and even back in the 90s had a better interior design than these cars. The MN12 is about as long as a full size modern SUV.... but somehow the inside feels about as roomy as a Chevy Cobalt
 
Kenz said:
Going to disagree on it just being CAFE.... A MN12 equipped with a modern drivetrain would get better MPG than any generic blob of an SUV these days. The big automakers produce vehicles to make profit, and vehicles design changed because of that. While the government standards are a major influence, profit is of course the main objective.

I'm not trying to put down our vehicles, but they didn't sell well for a few reasons. One of those major reasons IMO being interior design and efficiency. The average compact/mid size rental car these days, and even back in the 90s had a better interior design than these cars. The MN12 is about as long as a full size modern SUV.... but somehow the inside feels about as roomy as a Chevy Cobalt
Click to expand...


I think the reason is didn’t do well is the maintenance for these cars. All the control arms, cheap ass strut rod and the rediculous k member is pretty expensive to work on.

That, plus this thing is the size of the ford expedition. I parked it in my moms parking spot one day and it’s a tighter squeeze than that big ass SUV.
 
Kenz said:
Going to disagree on it just being CAFE.... A MN12 equipped with a modern drivetrain would get better MPG than any generic blob of an SUV these days. The big automakers produce vehicles to make profit, and vehicles design changed because of that. While the government standards are a major influence, profit is of course the main objective.

I'm not trying to put down our vehicles, but they didn't sell well for a few reasons. One of those major reasons IMO being interior design and efficiency. The average compact/mid size rental car these days, and even back in the 90s had a better interior design than these cars. The MN12 is about as long as a full size modern SUV.... but somehow the inside feels about as roomy as a Chevy Cobalt
Click to expand...

CAFE is a major reason automakers shifted focus towards the category in the first place, “light trucks” had and still have relaxed standards and being to the automakers a step up from sedans they can charge a little more too. Of course it’s all about profit.

The Thunderbird was a specialty model from day 1 to the end, I don’t know why we’re even comparing them. If you had a family in 1966 you probably bought a country squire station wagon, not a flairbird. My point is does it really matter if the car is packaged less practical if you don’t use the well packaged SUV to its maximum capability either though?

Chingon1 said:
I think the reason is didn’t do well is the maintenance for these cars. All the control arms, cheap ass strut rod and the rediculous k member is pretty expensive to work on.
Click to expand...

The segment was declining before the MN12 platform, when you look at Fox Tbird/Cougar sales data it’s on a mostly downward trend, same with GM G bodies, W bodies even the Mustang. If being difficult to work on/expensive to get parts for was the reason you literally wouldn’t see a single German car on the road. MN12s aren’t even that bad, Ford made worse in the 90s
 
I don't know why we're even considering practicality of the MN12/FN10 specifically in the first place. It's practically irrelevant to the macro trend that emerged in the '90s and it would have been due for a redesign anyway if it were to persist as competition to the GM W-body coupes into the 2000s.

The personal coupe segment as a whole was in decline. Let's not act like the BMW 6 series didn't also take a 15-year hiatus during this time, or that the SN95 was any more practical despite also being woefully underpowered with the exception of the SVT Cobra. When you get squeezed by pony cars at the sporty end and lose out to anything with four doors at the practical end (except the 2nd gen Lexus IS, which is the only sedan I've ever experienced with worse backsesat legroom than an MN12), there isn't anywhere left to go unless you're comfortably upmarket with the brand cachet of Lexus, Mercedes, or BMW and not competing with the plebs to be the primary car in the household.

Society has trended toward providing fewer options over the past several decades across consumer-targeted segments in all industries. It's a chicken or the egg between corporations who want to maximize profit and consumers giving up their freedom of choice because making choices requires too much brain power, essentially.

That being said, the fact that GM managed to create one more generation of the Chevy Monte Carlo from 2000-07 and also sold some proportion of the Pontiac Grand Prix in coupe form showed that there was still some market left for the personal coupe. However, the 6th gen Monte Carlo's total sales were less than the MN12 Cougar, never mind the Thunderbird.

I'll wrap up by saying that Ford has been hostile to automotive enthusiasts ever since the '90s. Admittedly though, the model that they followed is just good business in the face of their consistent inability to innovate or excite those who have more income and don't treat cars like appliances. Hell, they couldn't even do right by people who do treat their cars like appliances. Following the trend with the Explorer made good business sense, but it ultimately came at the cost of everything else other than the F-150 and the Mustang. It wasn't just the MN12.
 
Last edited:
I have to say I am baffled by complaints about interior design/roominess on the MN12. I will say I am partial to the early style dash due to it having a bit more room around the driver, but the ergonomics of the 94-97 dash are hard to beat, even by modern cars. There were numerous reasons why coupes were going away even back in the 90s, but of all the nails in the MN12s coffin, I never once considered the interior to be one of them.
 
I never considered a 2 door able to haul 4 adults. I had a car seat in the back of my first cougar and it was just fine. In fact my daughter preferred it to our other vehicles. Not sure how much weight that carries anymore as she still has yet to drive my Cougar.
 
MadMikeyL said:
I have to say I am baffled by complaints about interior design/roominess on the MN12. I will say I am partial to the early style dash due to it having a bit more room around the driver, but the ergonomics of the 94-97 dash are hard to beat, even by modern cars. There were numerous reasons why coupes were going away even back in the 90s, but of all the nails in the MN12s coffin, I never once considered the interior to be one of them.
Click to expand...

That's what I loved most about the MN12 was the '94 redesign with the new - wrap around - dash and the tear drop front bumper.

For it's time - a very stylish car.
 
MadMikeyL said:
I have to say I am baffled by complaints about interior design/roominess on the MN12. I will say I am partial to the early style dash due to it having a bit more room around the driver, but the ergonomics of the 94-97 dash are hard to beat, even by modern cars. There were numerous reasons why coupes were going away even back in the 90s, but of all the nails in the MN12s coffin, I never once considered the interior to be one of them.
Click to expand...

See I like the 94-97 dash better from the driver seat, but I like the 89-93 interior better as a passenger, which feels a bit more “open”.

The core point regardless is true the interior gives up nothing as far as front occupant comfort at least. Tons of room, excellent ergonomics and great visibility… the latter becoming a genuine rarity in even the most popular of vehicles
 
I regularly had adults in the back seat of the Thunderbird during my college days. Leg room wasn't the issue. It was getting in and out, and that wasn't really a problem for young adults who had yet to experience body aches and joint pain. You want to know what pain is? The back seat of an F-body Camaro, or worse, the jump seat of a Tacoma extended cab, or worse yet, the jump seat of a Chevy S-10 extended cab.

Was the MN12 a long chassis? Sure. Did it drive like one? Heck no. Not after growing up with and learning to drive in a Lincoln Town Car. I'll also point out that every generation of the Expedition was wider and longer than the MN12, so these soft critiques aren't grounded in reality.

If the MN12 lost interior volume in any way, it was due to the car's aggressively low roofline and overall height of a mere 52.7". I wouldn't be surprised if no other car of its era had a larger length-to-height ratio. The '94-97 dashboard design did take up some more space, but overall, it's still far less claustrophobia-inducing than the whale that is the 60.7" tall 6th gen Taurus, which to me interestingly stands out as the only sedan I remotely considered back in 2011 that wouldn't coexist with the Thunderbird in the lift spot.
 
Last edited:
Irv said:
You want to know what pain is? The back seat of an F-body Camaro, or worse, the jump seat of a Tacoma extended cab, or worse yet, the jump seat of a Chevy S-10 extended cab.
Click to expand...

Agreed those are some tiny back seats compared to an mn12, but not really same cars

The length of MN12s makes most people assume the interior has more room. I would bet that many potential buyers back in the day went to look at them new, then got inside and noped out because it was too small.
I did just that looking at an Impreza with my wife 15 years ago. We got in, and said screw this it's tiny in here... ended up buying a Legacy.

The MN12 interior is comfortable and I am a fan of it. But besides a bit more rear leg room.... it's not much bigger inside than a Mustang of the same era
 
That goes back to the question of who even cares about back seat space in a two-door coupe?

That's what Matt and I are saying. The criteria that you would ding the MN12 for shouldn't even be relevant if you care about the back seat at all. That's why cars with four doors exist. Who the hell was shopping for coupes while simultaneously having a legitimate need to regularly seat four adults? A Ford salesman would easily point you to the Escort, the Tempo/Contour, the Taurus, or the Crown Vic if that mattered to you. Nowadays, a Ford salesman can tell you to sit on the ground because they don't make cars anymore.
 
Last edited:
Kenz said:
Agreed those are some tiny back seats compared to an mn12, but not really same cars

The length of MN12s makes most people assume the interior has more room. I would bet that many potential buyers back in the day went to look at them new, then got inside and noped out because it was too small.
I did just that looking at an Impreza with my wife 15 years ago. We got in, and said screw this it's tiny in here... ended up buying a Legacy.

The MN12 interior is comfortable and I am a fan of it. But besides a bit more rear leg room.... it's not much bigger inside than a Mustang of the same era
Click to expand...

I think that’s modern perspective creeping in. Keep in mind only TEN YEARS prior to the MN12 this was the Thunderbird and Cougar

IMG_7474.jpegIMG_7473.jpeg

Bigger in every dimension except interior space which the MN12 had more of. Ten years isn’t that crazy long of a time, a lot of brand new MN12 buyers in 89 may have had one of these or been familiar with one of these and not been spooked by their dimensions, because it was simply expected of cars in this category.

Those by the way were the best selling Tbirds and Cougars of all time, and there were way more practical and space efficient cars in the market by then so it’s not like society as a whole was forced into big coupes(like we effectively are today with SUVs and crossovers)… people wanted them for exactly what they were.
 
Also, let's be real here. While the annual sales of the MN12 Thunderbird didn't match that of the Aero Birds, they were by no means catastrophic.

YearProduction
1983121,999
1984170,551
1985151,852
1986165,965
1987128,135
1988147,243
Total885,745

YearProduction
1989122,909
1990114,040
199184,719
199274,149
1993130,750
1994121,082
1995115,397
1996112,302
199785,276
Total960,624

The MN12 Thunderbird also vastly outsold the Monte Carlo 312,975 to 237,314 for the three model years in which they coexisted, and the Monte Carlo's annual sales actually decreased slightly after the Thunderbird was canceled.

I don't see how the MN12's interior space was a statistically relevant or even actualized factor in its declining sales. Ford just wanted to ride their new gravy trains in the Explorer and Expedition, and they were clearly out of ideas for the Thunderbird if they were only planning to change the bumpers and introduce a de-tuned 4.6 for the canceled 1998 model and keep a model overdue for a redesign around for at least one more trip around the sun.

Ford also market-segmented their own product lines to death while leadership was screwing around with what would become Premier Automotive Group. But you can't have a prestige luxury marque setting records at the Bonneville Salt Flats because that's not a good look for the Lincoln brand. FOH.

It really is a wonder how I still own a Ford after how much I've relentlessly shitted on their management of the past three decades, because they've done everything they could to take the enjoyment out of cars in North America. The MN12 was a rare exception, so naturally the execs were upset with the project leadership.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Back
Top