The 1967-1971 generation of Thunderbird was the weakest in the family until the execrable 1980-1982 generation. It’s shortcomings were put forth very clearly and convincingly by Jim Cavenaugh in his CC titled “Who Am I. Why Am I Here?” I just reread it, and it speaks for my thoughts on this car quite perfectly.
This generation has been dubbed “Glamourbird” by, ah, presumably its fans. And of course it has them; rightfully so. But that name just isn’t working for me, as it’s anything but glamorous, so lets ponder the subject a bit more and then we’ll take your nominations.
So what’s wrong with it? It’s just not glamorous, for starters, or maybe that cover the whole issue. It lacks a clear and cohesive design, probably because it’s caught between two eras. The Thunderbird started life as a two-passenger semi-sports car, and evolved into a sporty personal car in 1958, essentially defining the genre.
European sports cars were the most glamorous and desirable in the 50s, and set the tenor for the decade stylistically. The Squarebird added a dash of luxury to bold American styling, and thus synthesizes the qualities for which ti came to be known, as well as defining the whole genre.
The Bulletbird (1961-1963) took that to its ultimate expression with the Sports Roadster, covering up the rear seats with a lift-off tonneau cover. of course it wasn’t genuinely sporty, but sporty was still the in thing.
Although the Sports Tonneau was still available on the 1964 Flairebird, the trend was moving more and more in favor of the luxury qualities, especially the Landau, which premiered already in 1962. But it had genuine flair, a crisp definition of luxury still keeping with the times. But those times were changing, quickly.
The Great Brougham Epoch came into full flower starting in 1965, with the Ford LTD. That era was defined by a new and much plusher definition of luxury. All pretenses of sporty were out, and materials and design focused on exaggerated aspects od “luxury” with lots of dark fake wood and deeply-cushioned seats. And of course padded vinyl tops, which the T-bird had been wearing for some time, but still with some flair. No more. This generation Thunderbird was lost between two great evolutionary epochs, the sporty one and the Brougham one. maybe we should call it the Lostbird?
Two years later, the new standard-bearer for the Brougham Epoch arrived, and knocked the T-Bird off its perch for good. In an era of rapidly rising real income and a strong economy, just about anyone who had been able to afford a T-Bird could (and would) soon make the move up to a Mark. These cars tended to sell well to successful up-and-comers, especially self-made business people, and the extra for a Mark was well worth it to show one had made their mark.
I know it’s not fair showing this somewhat worse-for-wear interior, but this whole approach, pioneered by the Squarebird, was essentially obsolete by 1967. Too light, too vinyly, too shiny, still trying to evoke an aircraft cabin rather than a wood-paneled old man’s club room.
Things changed lightning-quick in the 60s, and this was “Where the Boys Are”, not “A Whiter Shade of Pale”, despite the appearances. “Palebird?”
We haven’t even gotten to its front end. I was a bit shocked the first time I saw it in an ad in the fall of 1966.
It looked just like a whaleshark with its huge mouth open to hoover up plankton and suck it through its baleen. Not very attractive; never mind glamorous. The Whalesharkbird?
And nowadays it also reminds me of this. The Grimacebird?
Well, the odds of its hidden headlight still being hidden aren’t all so great these days, so it does look a wee bit less menacing. More like…Sadbird.
Your turn.
Strangebird…
My automatic response is usually “lardbird,” but i can’t say I don’t use that for the subsequent generation of T-Bird as well.
Sandwich Bird – hamming it up whilst stuck between two eras.
(At least it isn’t the 4-door version – the Confused Bird.)
Although they are related, I see a big fat natural division between the 67-69 Bird and the 70-71, which has always had a completely different flavor.
The 70-71 is absolutely the Glamour Bird. It tried to be the hip, beautiful transport pod for the stylish. Which was not an easy job once the Mark III came out. Still, it managed to bring its own slightly sportier vibe and has always worked for me.
The 67-69? I would call it the AwkBird. Because it was an awkward Bird from pretty much every angle. I have not warmed to the styling of these one little bit from when I wrote that piece. The car has a certain appeal as an oddball and unloved yet competent car. It is just not attractive.
For some reason the link to the 68 AwkBird post I wrote (there, I’m going to use it) is not working. In fact the article seems to be unavailable through an online search and through our portal index as well. Color me stumped.
It came right up for me: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1968-thunderbird-who-am-i-why-am-i-here/
Odd, it works in Internet Explorer, just not on my normal Chrome browser.
In case it helps to figure out what’s going on: For me, it works on Microsoft Edge, but not Explorer or Chrome.
I normally use Firefox. But I just opened up Chrome and it works fine; popped up instantly. Seriously. I can’t imagine why a post wouldn’t show up. Very odd.
Probably some kind of cache issue or something like that on my end.
This is odd; it’s not pulling up on Safari either.
Blunderbird? I actually liked these in two door form (other than the cheesy looking landau iron); the four door? not so much so.
Here’s another vote for Blunderbird. I very staunchly and just about exclusively prefer 4-door cars over 2-door cars, but the 4-door T-birds of this era were just freakin’ dumb.
I`ve been calling it ‘Blunderbird’ ever since it came out. Nothing on this car is right, from the ‘mouth organ’ grille to taillights. As far as the 4 door is concerned, don`t get me started.
TurkeyBird. Ford improved things a little bit for 1968 by de-chroming part of the front bumper. Still not good, but the ’67-’69 T-Birds looked better than the ’70-’71 BeakBirds.
BeakBirds were the worst
My first thought was also “Turkeybird” but that’s kind of redundant….sort of like Broughamybrougham.
So, my suggestion is to just turn that name around, as it were. And viola:
ThunderTurkey
Actually, I kind of like these Thunderbirds, at least the 67 model, before the “necessary” facelifts for the 68 and 69 models. And the 4 door is interesting but nowadays when I see one on the street the poor car looks like it needs a secondary engine.
This particular car? Doesn’t wear triple white all that well, I would bet the body was originally a different color. White with a white interior, and no vinyl roof…and of course period correct whitewalls would look kind of decent.
Some nicknames just come naturally. The 71-73 Mustang being the Clydesdale makes sense, as the largest horse. The BeakBird from Bunkies era makes sense, as well. This particular model just was an amalgam of the styling cues Ford was trying out, and as such, it just didn’t make a cohesive statement. One can see a lot of Cougar styling cues in the front end. One sees the shape and mood of the Mark III being telegraphed with this one, but it just does not fully pull off the look. With the 4 doors, this is the contrarian bird, but as a coupe, it is just a Darwinian experiment that never really made it as its own species. Perhaps one could call it the X-Bird, as it is an enigma in the Thunderbird story.
I hereby declare it the “turdbird”!
Oh c’mon, it’s not that bad – more of a meh-bird.
Somehow, I knew this QOTD would come up eventually. JP, Chris M, Calibrick, and Dave B, and myself, got into this discussion at this post back in October of 2016….
Click Here and Scroll Down (if you like):
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1963-thunderbird-landau-the-american-dream-car/
I don’t think we ever really decided on a good name for this generation. Chris suggested “Brougham Bird”, but like Paul says in the article, it may have been “Lost” during the Great Brougham Epoch….
I think we all liked “Box Bird” for the other “weak bird” Paul cites here.
Later in this generation though, you’ve got to go with Bunkie Bird or Beak Bird or Bunkie Beak Bird, but Paul’s suggestion of “Whalesharkbird” for ’67 thru ’69 is priceless.
For those seeking a more “Glamourous” name, perhaps Jet Intake Bird could work here.
Oddly enough, the ’67 set a record for Thunderbird sales. It’s also one of the hardest T-Birds to get parts for, because even though the ’68 looks similar, it shares very few pieces with the ’67. Front fenders, bumper, dash, and door trim were ’67 only. There was also a host of mechanical changes to address some very real quality issues with the ’67’s.
1967 also marked the introduction of the Eldorado, another ground breaking car that received critical acclaim, but mixed reaction on the showroom floor. By ’69, we had a bit of clarity. The Mark III knocked the ball out of the personal luxury ballpark, and the Grand Prix seemed to pick up the flag the T-Bird dropped in the sporty coupe segment. I think even Pontiac was surprised with the sales numbers the Grand Prix generated.
The 1967 model didn’t sell all that well, if I recall correctly. Prior to the “downsized” 1977 Thunderbird, the best-selling models had been the 1960 and 1964 editions.
I’d call it the dodo bird, another now extinct flightless bird, and this is the car that put it on the path towards extinction.
UglyBird. There, I said it and I’m glad.
I’ve always had an odd fondness for these unusual ‘birds. The fake landau bars have to go, though. But the jet intake inspired grille is pretty cool in my book.
Except for the Buck Rogers dashboard I find little to like about this series of T-birds, especially the 4-door. What a fail! To me the front quarter view brings to mind an alligator – ‘gatorbird.
I forgot to add this picture last night. The image was in my head, but I couldn’t place it.
Swingandamissbird
Vacuubird
Thunderhipsbird
Brougham Bird
Going to out myself here. I like these birds. A lot. Like the big silly fish mouth intake. Like the rear end. Like the interior. Like the whole enchilada.
I’ll see myself out now.
I’ve always loved these 67-69 as well, especially the 4door, I’m not sure why. maybe, me being a Mopar guy it’s because of the comment below? Kinda Chrylsery-fuselagey looking.
Who drove these back then? I’d venture to guess it was middle aged upper middle class people, who went to the country club, but still wanted people to think they were young. Dressed hip, like the younger generation– essentially people with a mid-life crisis. So what about: Mid-Life Crisis Bird.? Seemed as if Tbird was going through it too.
Fuselage-bird… Looks like it was designed by Chrysler. 😉
Oh and one thing struck me in that ad for the ’58 at the airport. The car is totally outdated and long gone, but the Cessna 182 is still in production and still looks modern.
Plankybird, i really like the 70 and 71 suicide door models. these are hard to name…………..DODOBIRDS?
This generation, when the eyes are closed, always reminds me of an electric shaver. I nominate “Shaverbird”
I came here to post the same thing. That grill makes me think of the “microscreen” shavers of the same era.
Like a lot of other commenters here, I can find things to like about the styling of the coupe. But I’m happy to pile on about the unsightly 4-door, with its odd proportions and puzzle-piece doors.
I like both design styles, but both reminds me the nozzle of hair dryers of the same time.
Anteater, at least until the Bunkie Bird restyle
Ok, I LOVE these Birds. My parents bought a ’68 4-door, dark blue with black vinyl roof. I loved them then and I love them now!! It was a big, classy car. Unfortunately, it was read-ended in late summer of ’69. Then Dad ordered a sight unseen ’70 Caprice.
To me it’s the meltbird.
When I was about 10 I saw one of these burn. My friends and I arrived just after the fire truck, this was way out in the country and the car was fully engulfed.
Pretty cool stuff for us kids, but the next day we came back and there were all these puddles of frozen pot metal where the trim and who knows what else had melted and pooled on the road.
I remember when they first came out. I couldn’t believe it. And not in a good way.
Jumped the Whalesharkbird.
call it what it was:
THe LTDBird
Thats cool!!!
I like ’em, and so did Mattel/Hot Wheels, they had a “Custom T-Bird’ version.
Don’t care what “all cars must be small/sporty/Euro/Muscle” folks think.
I don’t care for that either, however the previous three Tbird styles weren’t remotely small/sporty/Euro/Muscle, yet they are significantly more charming, distinctive and impactful than these were.
The face reminds me of “GIGANTOR”…
Let the slings and arrows fly. I like this generation of Thunderbird, a lot. It has just enough of the aircraft/spacecraft vibe that was so popular at the time that it looks up to date where the flairbird was looking too early sixties square.
The 68s were the best of the lot. Government regs banned the chrome and brushed aluminum dash due to glare, so the 68s went to woodgrain. The 68s also went to the 429.
The headlight doors on the subject car are probably tied open as the 67s did not have a spring to open them in the lack of vacuum. You could push the doors open on a 67, but a sudden stop might bring them down again.
I wonder if the mechanical turn signal sequencer still works? On a 67, you could hear the motor in back opening and closing the contacts with a rrrr..rrr.rrrr.rrr while the sparking of the contacts came through on the AM radio.
Yes, I had a 67 when the earth was young. What nickname to put on it? Considering the 390 mine had, and the trans, the name would be “dribbles”.
The 1969 coupes had improvements to the suspension that improved handling and braking. (For some reason, the sedan did not get these changes, based on contemporary road tests.)
But I preferred the tail light design used on the 1967 and 1968 models to that used on the 1969 version. The 1969 Thunderbird did not have the full-width tail lights.
But I preferred the tail light design used on the 1967 and 1968 models to that used on the 1969 version. The 1969 Thunderbird did not have the full-width tail lights.
Agreed. Additionally, i prefer the 68 taillight treatment to the 67. On the 67, the horizontal trim piece in the taillight bar is bright metal. In the 68, that trim piece is black, which, I think, gives the car a cleaner look.
I also prefer the 1968 grille design over the 1967 and 1969 designs.
If I recall correctly, the 429 V-8 was phased in during the 1968 model year. That engine was a big improvement over the 390 V-8.
Plus, the UAW struck Ford for 68 days early in the 1968 model year, and quality suffered for awhile after production resumed. Between that and the 429 V-8, buyers were better off with a 1968 model produced later in the model year.
I think the 69 Landau roofline was an improvement over the 67-68. If not for the dreary looking taillight design, the 69 Landau would be a greater reprieve for this generation.
I just never cared for that ultra-wide C pillar. The four-door looks best to me.
It’s not whether or not it looks the best, I just think that looks the most like a Thunderbird should. The 4 door is probably the best looking, but a Thunderbird it is not.
Good point about the sequential turn signals. While riding in the back of my mother’s 1967 Thunderbird I could clearly hear that motor driving the sequencing relays with the turn signal on.
One other point Steve. Did your car have the cruise control rocker switches on the far left and far right of the steering wheel spokes? (Resume, retard) My mother’s ’67 did and I was just amazed at that concept. The car in Paul’s article does not have cruise control as it has that one year only large pad in the steering wheel center.
One other point Steve. Did your car have the cruise control rocker switches on the far left and far right of the steering wheel spokes?
No. Mine was pretty basic. It had power windows and the breakaway steering column, but the radio was AM only and no A/C or cruise.
Is this satire? These are terrific cars. I’ve owned one for 28 years. I have 14 cars in my current collection and my 68 T bird is one of my favorites. They are exceptionally good driving cars, for the era, fast, quiet and comfortable. Much better handling than earlier generations. They are quite roomy for their size, with a nice sized trunk. Fords quality at the time was riding high and they had excellent materials and assembly. As for styling, I like it. It’s cool and unique.
Seriously, this article is surprisingly ill-informed ignorant and offensive. Mocking a car that has an enthusiastic following is just stupid and unwelcoming for a site that tries to be welcoming to car enthusiasts. What are you thinking? Are you trying to drive people away? Even non T bird fans would get tired of reading negative stuff like this. I wouldn’t want to read this kind of insulting nonsense about any car. I think you folks can do better.
They are quite roomy for their size, with a nice sized trunk.
A gigantic trunk for the short rear deck. Ford apparently stood the gas tank on it’s edge just aft of the rear axle, with the spare tire on a shelf above the tank and axle. The trunk was amazingly deep, extending down between the frame rails.. iirc, paper grocery bags sitting in the trunk only came up to the spare tire shelf.
Mine was also a very quiet runner. Sitting at a traffic light, the only way I could tell the engine was running was from a slight quiver at the top of the radio antenna. No other sound or vibration.
“If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” school of thought, eh?
Otherwise known as self-censorship. Not what we do here. We do spirited debates, proffer opinions and fun facts. Here’s a fun fact: Tbirds have two doors. Four-door Tbirds are the spawn of the devil and should be killed with fire.
Discuss… And pray tell what exactly is inaccurate in Paul’s description of this generation of Tbirds. You wouldn’t want to come off as “ill-informed and offensive” yourself , would you?
You love your Thunderbird. I get it. You have told us why it is such a great car. If I found a really nice one I would love driving it too. The problem is that you have also described many other cars, like say a 68 Chrysler Newport. A Chrysler Newport was/is many things but a Thunderbird it was/is not.
It is undisputed that the Thunderbird lost its way at some point. I think almost everyone agrees (except for maybe Jason Shafer) that the game was over by 1972. But I think Paul has made the case (which I also made several years ago) that this car was the beginning of that process.
No car is all good or all bad. A Thunderbird was always somehow more than the sum of its parts. By 1967 it was a well built, nice driving, comfortable car. Before 1967 it had been so much more.
This generation of Thunderbird sorta flew the coop. In many ways I share your opinion of them.
But slap a Mercury nameplate on it and it’ll be the best thing since sliced bologna.:)
“Joe… you’ll say you like anything unpopular, just to go against the grain.”
“Nope! I honest-to-goodness like these Thunderbirds – especially the ’67s, and even four-doors.”
I’m going with Parlour-bird. These seem to have the same vibe as some of the nicer suburban tract houses from the late-’60s and their luxurious, rococo appointments. I love the cursive script font of the “Thunderbird” badge, as well as the jet-age look of the cockpit. The full-width(-look) grille and taillamps have always done it for me, as well.
Count me as an outlier as well, as I LOVE these cars. In fact, it could be the only classic I would consider owning now, in either 2 or 4 door versions. 1968 or 7 only, please. As these cars are in the “love ’em or hate ’em” category, I refer them to be called:
“AffordaBirds” as they are, as a classic era car, damn reasonable for what you get!
20 years ago when I was a student at an automotive trade school, we had a ’76 Thunderbird shop car. Someone had rearranged the “Thunderbird” letters at the front of the hood to spell “Bhundertird”
I like these birds…with the suicide doors it’s like a mini-continental.
A ’68 4-door with sunroof is on my short list.
I always thought the four-doors were cool. Cooler that the two-doors, now that I think about it. Even built myself one!
I’ve found Tbird enthusiasts to an all embracing lot, loving, or at the very least happily acknowledging, each and every year the nameplate existed, through thick and thin. Yet when they put their money where their mouth is, even they will sooner shell out for a flair or bullet before considering a glamour or newer, or at least they are less willing to show them. I’ve been to a few Thunderbird club of America shows as a sort of straggler with my Cougar, and can usually count on one hand the amount of thunderbirds in attendance after 1966.
I completely agree that the Lincoln Mark series was the true successor to the 66 Tbird. The late 60s was a sort of revenge period for the mid-upper price brands of Ford, simultaneously releasing the Mercury Cougar – which I can’t help but think cannibalized some sales of these so-called glamour birds, with better styling and very similar qualities in a smaller and better valued package – and then coming out with an all new Lincoln, solidly in the category occupied by the Tbird, and with then very unLincoln like traits, favoring a certain level of ostentatiousness, which the Tbird always posessed, compared to Continental’s subdued class. The Tbird just became obsolete in the lineup as a second fiddle.
Say what you will about the ’67-’71 cars, whether it be a vacuum cleaner or Bunkie Beak, they were at least distinctive. For the five year period between ’72-’76, Thunderbirds really just looked like bland, exposed-headlight Marks.
I feel this generation started the path to them, the noses were the only real defining feature, while the body shape and rooflines were relatively anonymous. I actually prefer the bunkie beak refresh because with it came the truly distinctive chopped top fastback roofline. I also think the Landau with the blocked off quarter windows was a visual(not visibility) improvement over the 67 as well, that came along in 69 I think. Unfortunately 69 had the worst looking taillight treatment in the entire run IMO.
I’d go one further with the 72-76: they look nearly indistinguishable from an LTD. I always have to double take the bottom rows of this pic to tell which is which
Agreed. These are miles ahead of the bland ’72-’76 Tbird which have nothing distinctive about them other than their overinflated size.
I love these “glamour birds”. I had a 71 4-door Landau in Green Firemist. I miss that car so much; hated to get rid of it. Unfortunately, the previous owner installed a huge aftermarket sun roof and it leaked no matter how much silicone I put around the seal. I had to wrap a sheet of polyethylene over it at work and weight that down with bricks, prompting my co-workers to name it the “Thunder-turd”.
Points for the Connie Francis/Procol Harum reference – this Tbird evokes for me the last gasp of Kennedy Camelot, and while not as stunning as earlier (or later Tbirds), has a charm about it.
Hooverbird.
I had an uncle who was the perfect example of the described demographic: an up-and-coming exec who preferred Fords. He started with a ’67 six-cylinder Mustang, went through a couple of Thunderbirds, got a Mark IV, thought a Seda deVille better fit his stature but returned to a Mark V. His last new ride was a Chrysler T&C minivan to haul his grandkids and wife’s Rascal scooter.
Then the bottom fell out and his final car was a clapped-out, used, early nineties’ Grand Am. It was pretty sad.
Weeeeeeellllll – gosh- I hate to declare all of you totally@ wrong but you all are totally wrong…
This car has to be seen in the context of the times – it’s smaller version of the classic Lincoln Continental – since it’s a sports version, it has rounded corners – but the influence is clear. It is also influenced by the beautiful 63 Buick Riviera in concept (the car as artistic expression as well as transportation) if not in styling.
It’s also clearly influence by the danish modernist trend of the times with its smooth and flowing but expressionistic shapes both inside and out. I especially loved the four-door, with its suicide doors, but the 2 door was clearly a car for an up and coming captain of industry who was still too young for a Lincoln with a driver.
I always thought of it as ‘The Future Bird’ in “The Jetsons” tv show view of the future.
* I will confess that I was seduced by one of these at the tender age of 11 when one of my father’s friends took us out to dinner in his 67 Thunderbird. The car really awed me. At that age I’d already ridden in a 63 Imperial and a Citroen DS. The Imperial struck me as too old fashioned and the Goddess as modern, but the 67 Thunderbird was just right.
I have some love for this generation, although I agree that the overall styling effort comes across as “confused.” The four-door sedan looks the best, which is completely at odds with the Thunderbird’s image as a personal luxury coupe.
This generation is also when the real bloat began. But I still prefer it to the bland – but even bigger – 1972-1976 generation.
Put me along side the others who love this generation. I’ve alway found the 64-66 models ungainly with their big greenhouse perched on top of a low body. The smooth 67-69s look like the perfect vehicle for Don Draper in the latter stages of his Mad Men career. Unfortunately examples are usually shown with the dreadful plain white or black vinyl interior, rather than with one of the many upgrades like this:
Thats just beautiful. I just have a thing for these cars, and I’m not sure if I prefer the to of the four doors. I mean, whats not to love about suicide doors? If you like Conti’s with suicides, I think the T-Bird is just more fab. What a great thing, tucked on the heap of automotive trash regardless of utility, uniqueness, or just damn greatness. Like vent windows, stainless steel door edge mouldings, and window sills that feel good with your arm out, these are the bomb. I still want one.
I’m not seeing it – that interior is not singular, sleek, or glamorous as was the interior of the earlier four-seat T-Birds. We bought a gently used 1965 in the summer of 1967 and I never could get enough of sitting in that car at night with all the interior lights on…
Just for giggles, I looked back at my comment from 2011. I still feel the same way about the car, neither fish nor fowl. There’s something about it that still doesn’t click with me.
If Squarebird hadn’t already being used to describe the 58-60 Thunderbirds, I would go with that. I don’t think that “Neither fish nor fowl-bird” is a good descriptor, either…
Just an impression from the day these were introduced without researching the dimensions but this generation looked much wider like full-sized Fords than previous Thunderbirds. One of the appeals of Thunderbirds up to that point was they had the intimate, close-coupled look, a feel not found in the full-sized Fords.
Of the series, I like them, primarily the four door for its Continental vibe (a sucker for clam-shell doors) and the ’69 Landau with its blind roof quarters. The latter evokes the pre-war coach-built convertible victorias and faux cabriolets on Classic marques.
These were upscale, middle market glamorous public displays for those who’d financially made it and were happy to flaunt it to their contemporaries. It wasn’t meant to appeal to real automotive sophisticates, just those who wanted to appear sophisticated.
I would call it the SabreBird because the nose looks so much like the intake of the F-100 Super Sabre
+1 My impressions exactly.
And the F-100 was also flown by the……USAF Thunderbirds.
Maybe that’s what inspired the 1967 Thunderbird.
I like the 1967-68 model years; they looked sleek. Also liked especially the rear full width sequential tail signal lights.
Throw your Aussie readers a bone: ‘Chunderbird.’
Personally, I’d call it the Cigarbird for the oddly pinched, symmetrical, torpedo-like silhouette.
I agree with Paul that the 80-82 generation of the T-Bird was the low point. But to me, the next-worst generation was the 77-79, when the once-proud bird was demoted to the role of Ford’s Monte Carlo.
I’d conclude by saying that all T-Birds from 1967-82 were lost in one way or another.
My father (FoMoCo guy) bought a gently-used program car for my mom around then–I *think* it was the ’69. I remember the two l-o-n-g doors and the 429, where I learned to lay rubber, while getting 9mpg in town. That was all pre-malaise, and I’d think its lbs/hp ratio not too shameful.
Like the Marks, I just never liked them in the lighter colors, but the darker ones were OK with me:
I concur on the darker colors for Marks but silver is okay IMHO.
The ItsDaysAreNumBird.
“Mawbird” is my choice, for the gaping front end and the granny roofline. I’d still rock the hell out of one with a black vinyl top sans landau bars. Make mine Tahoe Turquoise Metallic. http://automotivemileposts.com/tbird1969colors.html
My father bought my mother a new 1967 Thunderbird from Jerry Alderman Ford in Indianapolis. He traded in a 1964 Thunderbird. I never understood why Ford changed the tilt-away steering wheel on the 1967 model. In 1964 the whole steering column could be moved to the right once the transmission was in PARK. In 1967 only the steering wheel moved 45 degrees to the upper right on the column once you shifted in to PARK. When you wanted to drive off, you pulled the wheel back down, then shifted in to DRIVE. Sometimes the wheel would not stay locked into the straight- ahead position. My mother’s T-Bird also had the rare 8 mph automatic door lock option, a source of much consternation at car washes that would spin the wheels as you went through the car wash.
Wow, I had completely forgotten about that short-lived final design of the Swing Away. It was like Ford simply would not accept the superiority of a normal tilt column as GM and Chrysler used.
And very familiar with Jerry Alderman. I shopped a Mustang GT there in 85, bought my Club Wagon there in 95 and bought my Sedona at that building after it had become a Kia dealer. A classic 1960s era suburban Ford Dealer building that has since been torn down.
Now a Meijer store. Do you remember Cleverley Cadillac, Cleverley Lockhart Cadillac and Lockhart Cadillac? How about Northside Rambler and Coral Pontiac?
I remember Lockhart, I think I bought a part from there once. I think Freda Lockhart was the first female Cadillac franchise owner in the US. Northside Rambler is a stumper (I didn’t move here until the 80s). I remember a Pontiac dealer in that area (55th street?) but can’t recall the name.
When I was car shopping in the 80s Keystone Avenue was dealer row, starting at Palmer Dodge at 38th street and finishing at Ogle-Tucker Buick north of 71st, and with virtually everything else in between. I think Butler Kia (in the old Jerry Alderman Ford building) was the last new car dealer on that entire stretch, and it has been gone for a couple of years.
Eldon Palmer, the owner of Palmer Dodge, achieved notoriety by crashing the ’71 Challenger pace car at that years Indy 500.
Wow, I had completely forgotten about that short-lived final design of the Swing Away. It was like Ford simply would not accept the superiority of a normal tilt column as GM and Chrysler used.
My theory is Ford changed the breakaway feature due to the advent of collapsible steering columns. With the pre-67 generations, the joint in the steering shaft was somewhere around the firewall. The 67 design allowed for the collapsible section to be inserted under the instrument panel so that, in a crash, the column would collapse so it would not be driven through the driver like a spear.
My 67 had the breakaway column, *and* a tilt wheel, released by pulling rearward on the turn signal lever.
FWIW, old auto-safety-related magazine articles (PS or PM or MT) I have read indicated that
it was GM products that had the biggest issue with rearward/upward column
displacement in frontal crashes. Ford products seemed less affected.
They changed it because the 61-66 design was swing only, no tilt function.
The market demanded a tilt wheel, so they had to respond. It was a 3-year only design with minor variations (’68 added a collapsible section). The advent of the column-mount ignition switch ended it.
While Ford was certainly an adherent of NIH, they did relent and purchase Saginaw tilt columns from GM for use in ’65-66 Mercury and Lincoln. ’67 was the first year for a Ford-designed tilt, and they came in two varieties, swing-away for T-Birds, Mustangs and Cougars, and tilt-only for Mercs and Lincolns.
Re the 8-mph locks. My dad’s company ’67 LTD had those too, and caused all kinds of problems. One time they locked themselves at a gas station station with the keys inside. Later on our Expo 67 road trip they failed completely, applying full vacuum even with the car at rest. AFAIR that vacuum was strong, it took mom’s both hands to pull up the lock plunger!
I grew up with a ’68 4-door Landau from ’71-’74. It replaced my Dad’s beloved ’63 Continental, both suicide rear door cars. The T-Bird was quieter, faster (first year of the Ford 385 series big block 429) and had significantly more features, like a great sounding 8 track stereo.
We were middle class like the rest of neighborhood, however my Dad as a business man loved luxury cars. Where as most kids I knew parents drove Fury’s, Monte Carlo’s, and mostly forgetable iron; our T-Bird stood out. Most people had no idea what to make of it. But I will tell you all they had to do was look inside to see how cool and comfortable it was.
Even today (based on comments here within), people just don’t get something like this unless it was built by GM. This car in my appraisal was unique in the way it sounded, and exuded class. A Ford man to this day (although My Dad died a Cadillac man) in many way because this very fine member of the Ford family of cars.
While I would rather have a Bullet Bird or a 1966 T-Bird, I like this generation,
I think the best name for the ‘67-‘71 generation of Thunderbird is LOSTBIRD, but VINLYBIRD is also very descriptive. While the interior was a nice transition from the 1966 Flair Bird it did seem out of step for 1967. You got to love the ‘67 Levant grain and the ‘68-71 Aligator grain Vinyl Rooftops. Vinyl tops w/S Bar were standard on the 4 door Bird.
This T-Bird’s large flared wheel openings were likely inspired by the Toronado. Not sure if any one mentioned that bucket seats, which had been standard on all T-Birds since 1958 became optional in 1968, similar to Riviera’s switch to standard bench seats in 1966. It’s interesting that 66% of the 1969 T-Birds had bench seats. Riviera outsold Thunderbird for the first time in ‘69. Bunkie’s Beak ‘70-‘71 Birds saw more sales drop likely due to Mark III, Grand Prix and Monte Carlo. Sales became healthy again with the ‘72-‘76 Big Mark IV Luxury Birds.
Yes, people criticize Ford’s decisions now, yet at the the time they were just giving buyers what they wanted. The bigger and uglier they got, the better they sold, until the ’73 oil shock. Given time, I’m sure sales would have bounced back, but CAFE and other factors conspired against the big Birds.
Time has softened my perception of the Glamourbird, and I vote for letting it keep that title. When I first saw these in late ’66, my reaction was, “Ford can’t be serious”. The notion of a four door ‘Bird in particular seemed in violation of natural law. But that was then, and today I view them more charitably, especially when painted a dark color. Still, I’d rather have a Lincoln Mark III than one of these.
Based on the love it/hate it responses this has generated, I’m now thinking:
Polar Bird
I like it. I’ll take the white one please.
Tweenerbird, because it’s following several recognizable stylistic themes but hasn’t quite morphed to the next coherent one, neither fish nor fowl.
Some of those other names, however, have had me snorting my morning coffee. Just got another mug.
I must have been 10 or 11 years old, and just starting my Hot Wheels collection when I bought this T-Bird. So for me it will always be the “Hot Wheels Bird.”
Even though the 1983 T-Bird was a massive improvement over its predecessor (though still on the same Fox platform), it still retained the role in the Ford lineup it took on in 1977. As Ford’s Monte Carlo, though a very good one.
It wasn’t until the 2002 revival as a two-seater on the premium DEW98 platform (shared with the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-Type) that it returned to what it was originally, a specialty premium model over and above the standard Fords, almost its own brand, “unique in all the world.”
Unfortunately, it proved the 1958 four-seat concept right as it did not sell well at all. It’s also true the personal coupe market dried up across the board, so Ford dropped it in ’05 and hasn’t bothered with it since.
I understand your rationale, being mainstream Fox chassis based, however the 89-97 MN12 did that as well. It was completely unrelated to any Ford model or platform except the Cougar and Lincoln Mark VIII. Very different from the W body Lumina coupe, err, Monte Carlo of the 90s
From that point of view, you’re right. But then compare pricing. The 1976 T-Bird was a Continental Mark IV clone and the most expensive Ford. As were its predecessors. But from 1977 onward, you shopped the Thunderbird against the Montes, Regals and Grand Prixs of the world. Not Marks or Eldorados.
It’s also true that the Fox T-Bird shared a platform with the Mark VII, but the Lincoln was priced way higher. Same with the MN12, also used on the Mark VIII, but again the Lincoln boasted the 32-valve InTech engine and was way dearer than the Ford.
Bottom line, Ford went downmarket with the T-Bird from ’77 onward, and like the move to four seats in ’58, it resulted in much higher sales volumes.
Even thought the 1983 T-Bird was a massive improvement over its predecessor (though still on the same Fox platform), it still retained the role in the Ford lineup it took on in 1977. As Ford’s Monte Carlo, though a very good one.
It wasn’t until the 2002 revival as a two-seater on the premium DEW98 platform (shared with the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-Type) that it returned to what it was originally, a specialty premium model over and above the standard Fords, almost its own brand, “unique in all the world.”
Unfortunately, it proved the 1958 four-seat concept right as it did not sell well at all. It’s also true the personal coupe market dried up across the board, so Ford
I like the Shaverbird. If you remember Victor Kiam: “I liked the shaver so much I bought the company!” Ultimately, though, I think it’s just a Bland-bird compared to the four previous characterful generations.
The Blubberbird.
Puckerbird
This iteration, I’d name it the Dodo Bird – doomed to extinction – and the 1980-82 misfits I’d call the Dirty Birds for the poop they resemble. I still don’t even like to admit they ever existed.