Just wondering

[doc]

I was talking to someone about our Thunderbirds, and he asked me if Ford would ever reintroduce them. This got me thinking: The last time the T-Birds were two seaters was the originals 1955-57. Ford followed them up with four-seaters and kept them that way until our 2002-05s. So perhaps, if Ford does bring back the Thunderbird, would it most likely be a four-seater?

This got me thinking about what our Thunderbirds would look like stretched to a four-seater. But I'm not good at Photoshop. Would anyone skilled with Photoshop like to imagine what a four-seater version of the 2002-05 Thunderbird would look like?

It's just a frivolous idea--just curious. Thanks!

[BillyL]

Ugly and slower!

[RBIRD]

So... a Lincoln LS with a body kit?

[merlot4]

Google AI, not necessarily the best, struggled to come up with:
tbird 4 door.jpg tbird 4 door3.jpg tbird 4 door4.jpg


And here's an idea of an EBird, which by 2028 is something that must be taken into consideration.
https://www.carscoops.com/2023/07/20...shes-as-an-ev/

[ambitio]

I like the suicide door version that seems to have kept the overall length the same; less excited about an EV concept unless it comes with a built in gas generator in the trunk?

[JerriLampon]

Going through the mechanics and layouts, here are some physical specs of the 2003 Thunderbird and Lincoln LS and the

2003 Lincoln LS 3907 lbs
114.5 wheelbase 193.9” long
0-60 6.7 sec, 1/4 mie 15.1 @94 mph

2003 Thunderbird 3800lbs
107.2 wheelbase 195” long
0-60 6.5 sec. 1/4 mile 15.0 sec

So, the LS wheelbase was 7.3" longer, but it doesn't explain how rear seats could fit
in the 'Birds. Not knowing the intimate layout of the LS, I assume the gas tank is rearward
from the Thunderbirds. There is, of course, no space for a convertible top in the LS, so
more room there for seats.

For the '58 models, Thunderbird went to a 4 seater, no doubt not using the same chassis
1957 102" wheelbase
1958 107" wheelbase
adding 7" to the wheelbase, similar to the LS

The stock Thunderbird's door is probably wide enough to allow rear seat entry (with modified seat backs, of course).

Practicality-wise, who would actually use the rear seat? Or consider how many use the rear seat in any Mustang?

[ambitio]

Our cars have a small cargo area in the back and technically two trunks; one to fit the soft top and another the actual trunk area.
Maybe the LS is using the cargo area for leg space and the first trunk for seats? It also seems to have a shorter nose and be more upright.

[doc]

Thanks, Richard,

You did a great job! I also like the suicide door version.

[merlot4]

Thanks, Richard,

You did a great job! I also like the suicide door version.

Thanks, but you can play around with this as well, and might get something you really like. Once you enable it, just type in " make a.....", or "draw a....."
https://www.thunderbirdnest.com/foru...ogle-ai-try-it

[Brad]

Oddly enough I have thought about it. You could cut it at the seams and add extra floor pan (like they do limos) but the doors and convertible top would be a real nightmare

[Bobnoir1]

Oddly enough I have thought about it. You could cut it at the seams and add extra floor pan (like they do limos) but the doors and convertible top would be a real nightmare

You just need an extra 7" to be at the same wheelbase as the Lincoln LS or maybe extend beyond the existing base.
The '58 'Birds onward used the trunk for the convertible top, not the best approach, these days.

[ambitio]

I am under the impression that a longer wheelbase reduces maneuverability while requiring more attention on long stretches of straight line highways to keep the vehicle straight. Personally, I am happier with shorter (wheelbase :-) )