The Thunderbird Chronicles vs. Sunday Driver: Fruits of Olmsted
Last week I told you that the Bird is road legal. This week, it is the end of October and the Focus ST needs a state inspection too. The mechanic that worked on the Bird, "Tony the Fixer",
and I are on first name basis now and he smiles when he sees me as
he knows there is a good chance he will be getting some pocket lettuce. It was 7AM and I had time before his shop opened, so it was a good opportunity to go for an early morning drive in the Bird through the streets of Dorchester. As I drove through Franklin Park and the various parkways and surrounding areas, I was reminded that even in a dense urban area when the roads are not occupied, it is a rather pleasant drive. I have discussed the role of parkways in American driving culture before (HERE) and that gems, or more aptly, emeralds are hiding in plain sight.
Alone with my thoughts that only a park can bring, a few observations were gleaned with more experience in the Bird: even though this damn transmission does not shift well, I have mostly grasped it's idiosyncrasies and adapted my driving style to get through the gears well. There was more comfort with allowing gravity to suddenly push my foot down more forcefully on the gas pedal and allowing myself to get more used to the ergonomics and controls. Although the Bird is not in optimal shape, I wanted to understand more intimately the driving dynamics and understand my appeal to see if it was the idea of nostalgia alone or something tangible. I am old enough to have regularly driven cars of this "vintage" in it's original era and as I drove reflected on the evolution of the automobile over the past 25 years. This brought me to the conclusion that a back to back comparison of the Bird and ST was needed. Hence, Fate and Frederick Law Olmsted have conspired to pit the 1992 Ford Thunderbird SC vs. the 2013 Ford Focus ST.
Without getting wonky and lost in internal car codes, extensive model history, vehicle specs and jargon, from the Thunderbird's origins in the 1950's it was billed as a personal luxury car. When the 10th generation Thunderbird came out in 1989, it was pretty advanced for the period but was well past the zenith of the personal luxury car segment it helped define post WWII (modern SUV's and trucks have filled that void, but that's another story). In more common verbiage, my Thunderbird and it's upmarket brand cousin, Mercury Cougar XR7 are GT cruisers in that they are performance and luxury automobiles capable of high speed and spirited long-distance driving. The Bird is a comfortable car with excellent features, options, power, torque and performance for it's era. There was a level of rarity as when it was released, the Thunderbird, Cougar and Chevrolet Corvette were the only rear-wheel drive North American domestic cars to offer a four-wheel independent suspension at the time. For some driving enthusiasts this is a very important design feature as it relates to overall vehicle handing, ride and performance. This is in contrast to a solid rear axle set up and there has been many a debate about the finer points of each.
The Focus ST is one of several choices of "hot-hatch" across manufacturers in North America that offer utility, aggressive looks, very sporty driving dynamics and high performance. These include brand brothers, Ford Focus RS, Ford Fiesta ST, Volkswagen GTI and older model year Subaru STI's. With the release of the 3rd generation Focus in 2011, we saw the eventual return of performance oriented versions in North America with the 2013 ST. The last Focus that we got in North America that was akin to anything performance based was Focus SVT (2002-04), which I also had the pleasure of owning.
In terms of driving dynamics, ergonomics and driving position the Bird is a very comfortable place to sit, even with a car in this condition. I can drive the Bird all day. You lean
back in the seat and just drive; whether you want to cruise or carve corners, it will do both. This is the very essence of a GT car. You sit very
low in the Thunderbird and the interior feels very spacious and airy. The 360
degree visibility is very good. The clutch is heavy and has a different action in comparison to the ST clutch, which I find more enjoyable. The steering is light, direct with little play in the wheel. No doubt this was helped by the new front end parts. The steering wheel is adjustable but is
has a fixed angle few degrees where the top of wheel tilts away from
you. There are a lot of controls in the center dash for the era, which
can be distracting if you are searching to turn something on/off. However, I
find it less distracting than modern infotainment units; there is no shiny beacon calling for your attention away
from the road.
It is cliche to call older cars "analog" and "mechanical" and I find that these are words that some car reviewers use almost implicitly and without thought when talking about anything from the 20th century. It is akin to wine snobs that talk about flavors with words like "leathery" when they can't think of anything else to say. So then, how would I describe it? As mentioned, I am old enough to have driven these types of cars in their original era and my take is that this car feels like a late 80's-early 90's vision of the 21st century would be like. You want a pop culture reference to encapsulate it all? Go watch Back to the Future II.
When we look at the same elements of driving dynamics, ergonomics and driving position for the Focus ST, I think one phrase describes it well: Hard Car. The suspension is hard, the ride is hard, the seats are hard. You switch off the electronic driver aids and it can be hard to drive too. You really have to like driving to daily drive this car. If you have any sort of back problems, don't buy one or get regular Focus seats. I have had this car three years and the lady of the house does not like riding in it anymore due to back issues.
However, the ST wants to be driven hard. It begs you to drive it hard and its easy to end up in the upper performance range of this car, which is a very nice feeling. I am comfortable saying that this is a "driver's car" even though in it's essence we are talking about a front wheel drive Focus. Also, the steering wheel tilts and is telescopic and is more
vertical. It has a more upright, higher sitting position and you do feel
cocooned in the cabin. I feel that I can get into a very comfortable driving position, however
the range is more narrow than in the Bird in that adjusting the position
in the Focus a little can make it uncomfortable, where as in the Bird,
the same adjustment wont make much difference. It is has a lot electronics and wizardry that help it handle the way it does such as torque-vectoring. It is a direct car to drive, but at the end of the day, it is a front wheel drive car with the same trappings of torque steer. In a front wheel drive car, the front wheels are doing two jobs: dealing with steering inputs and driving the wheels. In a rear wheel drive car, the front wheels are doing one job: dealing with steering inputs; a rear drive car is certainly optimal. Nevertheless, I can also drive this car all day and in fact have. In addition to it being my daily driver, it is the car that has done the Sunday drives and it has been to North Carolina and back. Visibility is not great and definitely much poorer in comparison the Bird. However, there are several reasons for that with the main one being crash worthiness.
Again without getting wonky here, when we talk the evolution of safety and size of modern cars, they go hand in hand. In their respective eras, the Thunderbird was in the mid-size car segment and the ST is in the category of compact car. However, as you may have observed from the comparative photo at the beginning: The ST is the same size if not bigger than the Thunderbird. The prevalence of SUVs are a factor, but more specifically we have seen cars evolve with improved frontal, rollover and side impact crash protection with multiple air bags and other technological systems all over the cabin which means bigger and wider car pillars and more space needed for the package. You can only stuff in so much without increasing the dimensions unless you start using more stronger, expensive materials. I told my niece about the fact that the Bird had no airbags and she looked at me with the shock and horror of hearing "I breed unicorns and harvest their horns". The lady of the house has heard me speak about this evolution more times than she probably can stand. When you talk about the safety evolution from her 2004 Civic to now, the differences are very noticeable. The safety features in the Civic are still superior to that of the Thunderbird, but this does not take into account the Takata manufactured grenades, also known as airbags, that she unknowingly sat in front of for the better part of a decade...but I digress.
In any case, the differences in safety are plain. I feel very confident of walking away from a crash in the Focus with minimal injury, whereas in the Bird I stand to be in a considerable amount of pain if I can stand up at all. Risk is everywhere and it helps me to remain observant and be conscious of the surroundings. You will be very hard-pressed to find anyone driving a much older car and see them texting or have their face buried in a phone.
With all that said, being able to drive the Thunderbird more and doing a back to back driving comparison helps to place me as a driver as I get older. I am a performance oriented driver and like the harshness of the Focus but can appreciate the GT characteristics of a car like the Thunderbird so it not nostalgia by itself; there is something to like here. Also, it allows me to brainstorm and orient myself to what direction to take the Bird in terms of parts and performance. Do I restore it and make it near original? Do I make it a real ground-pounding hardcore street machine? There are certainly a number of examples that inspiration can be drawn from either side. While trying to make a decision, I will enjoy them as is.
 |
| Comparative size of Thunderbird SC vs. Focus ST |
Without getting wonky and lost in internal car codes, extensive model history, vehicle specs and jargon, from the Thunderbird's origins in the 1950's it was billed as a personal luxury car. When the 10th generation Thunderbird came out in 1989, it was pretty advanced for the period but was well past the zenith of the personal luxury car segment it helped define post WWII (modern SUV's and trucks have filled that void, but that's another story). In more common verbiage, my Thunderbird and it's upmarket brand cousin, Mercury Cougar XR7 are GT cruisers in that they are performance and luxury automobiles capable of high speed and spirited long-distance driving. The Bird is a comfortable car with excellent features, options, power, torque and performance for it's era. There was a level of rarity as when it was released, the Thunderbird, Cougar and Chevrolet Corvette were the only rear-wheel drive North American domestic cars to offer a four-wheel independent suspension at the time. For some driving enthusiasts this is a very important design feature as it relates to overall vehicle handing, ride and performance. This is in contrast to a solid rear axle set up and there has been many a debate about the finer points of each.
The Focus ST is one of several choices of "hot-hatch" across manufacturers in North America that offer utility, aggressive looks, very sporty driving dynamics and high performance. These include brand brothers, Ford Focus RS, Ford Fiesta ST, Volkswagen GTI and older model year Subaru STI's. With the release of the 3rd generation Focus in 2011, we saw the eventual return of performance oriented versions in North America with the 2013 ST. The last Focus that we got in North America that was akin to anything performance based was Focus SVT (2002-04), which I also had the pleasure of owning.
It is cliche to call older cars "analog" and "mechanical" and I find that these are words that some car reviewers use almost implicitly and without thought when talking about anything from the 20th century. It is akin to wine snobs that talk about flavors with words like "leathery" when they can't think of anything else to say. So then, how would I describe it? As mentioned, I am old enough to have driven these types of cars in their original era and my take is that this car feels like a late 80's-early 90's vision of the 21st century would be like. You want a pop culture reference to encapsulate it all? Go watch Back to the Future II.
When we look at the same elements of driving dynamics, ergonomics and driving position for the Focus ST, I think one phrase describes it well: Hard Car. The suspension is hard, the ride is hard, the seats are hard. You switch off the electronic driver aids and it can be hard to drive too. You really have to like driving to daily drive this car. If you have any sort of back problems, don't buy one or get regular Focus seats. I have had this car three years and the lady of the house does not like riding in it anymore due to back issues.
 |
| Inside Focus ST cabin, NH Seacoast |
Again without getting wonky here, when we talk the evolution of safety and size of modern cars, they go hand in hand. In their respective eras, the Thunderbird was in the mid-size car segment and the ST is in the category of compact car. However, as you may have observed from the comparative photo at the beginning: The ST is the same size if not bigger than the Thunderbird. The prevalence of SUVs are a factor, but more specifically we have seen cars evolve with improved frontal, rollover and side impact crash protection with multiple air bags and other technological systems all over the cabin which means bigger and wider car pillars and more space needed for the package. You can only stuff in so much without increasing the dimensions unless you start using more stronger, expensive materials. I told my niece about the fact that the Bird had no airbags and she looked at me with the shock and horror of hearing "I breed unicorns and harvest their horns". The lady of the house has heard me speak about this evolution more times than she probably can stand. When you talk about the safety evolution from her 2004 Civic to now, the differences are very noticeable. The safety features in the Civic are still superior to that of the Thunderbird, but this does not take into account the Takata manufactured grenades, also known as airbags, that she unknowingly sat in front of for the better part of a decade...but I digress.
In any case, the differences in safety are plain. I feel very confident of walking away from a crash in the Focus with minimal injury, whereas in the Bird I stand to be in a considerable amount of pain if I can stand up at all. Risk is everywhere and it helps me to remain observant and be conscious of the surroundings. You will be very hard-pressed to find anyone driving a much older car and see them texting or have their face buried in a phone.
With all that said, being able to drive the Thunderbird more and doing a back to back driving comparison helps to place me as a driver as I get older. I am a performance oriented driver and like the harshness of the Focus but can appreciate the GT characteristics of a car like the Thunderbird so it not nostalgia by itself; there is something to like here. Also, it allows me to brainstorm and orient myself to what direction to take the Bird in terms of parts and performance. Do I restore it and make it near original? Do I make it a real ground-pounding hardcore street machine? There are certainly a number of examples that inspiration can be drawn from either side. While trying to make a decision, I will enjoy them as is.
Comments
Post a Comment