The odds of this Thunderbird flying majestically again are almost nil. Its sequential taillights are dimmed forever, unless someone comes along and strips them, as the rear bumper and enclosed new-for 1966 full-width taillights look to be intact. But other than that and a few smaller trim and interior pieces, this once-proud ‘Bird looks grounded forever.
I have some mixed feelings about that.
Here’s where it sits, on a grassy stretch next to Hwy 101 a few miles south of the town of Bandon, OR, on the way to Port Orford. Its beak is agape, as if crying out in pain. But its plaintive cries have fallen on dead ears; it’s been sitting here ever since we started going to Port Orford regularly almost four years ago. I finally stopped to at least give it some attention and memorialize it here at CC before the final blow tow comes.
True confessions: I’m not exactly a big fan of the ’64-’66 “Flair Birds”, especially the ’66 with this new “Town Hardtop” that made the roof look way too heavy and eliminated the rear side window. It rather looks like an aftermarket removable hardtop, although the weight would be considerable.
I’m actually surprised they didn’t put opera windows in it, like they did with the ’56-’57 Thunderbird. Well, they looked terrible since they obviously weren’t part of the original ’55 design. It looks like a home-brew job; it’s out of balance with the rest of the roof (and car). Of course that applies to its standard continental spare too. So much for pretending to be a genuine sports car, and the beginning of some poor styling choices to come from Ford. But look at all that ground clearance!
There, that’s much better, as it usually is with first-year models before they got affected with gee-haws and doo-hickies as part of Detroit’s infernal annual styling change policies. My first intimate introduction to these was in Iowa City, in 1962-1963 when our next door neighbor, a Russian emigree professor (or Russian) at the university rented her basement apartment to a world-class gymnast, and set up a Nissen trampoline in her back years. Yowza! That was a whole new experience.
He drove an unblemished black 1955 Thunderbird. He gave me a ride one time and I’m not sure which was more exciting; the ride or the trampoline. I was an avowed Corvette guy kid at the time, but I could already see the appeal of what had become one of the quickest and first modern “classics”, even if it wasn’t yet ten years old.
There was a “Square Bird”a few blocks away on my daily 1 mile trudge to school. I had very mixed feelings about them; yes, their bucket seat interiors were worthy of some facial smudges on the windows, but I couldn’t ever warm up to their heavy front ends and boxy bodies.
Their mouths and eyes reminded me of a deep-sea angler fish.
The arrival of the 1961 “Bullet Bird” coincided with our arrival in the US, so naturally I was smitten despite being a GM acolyte. It was good to know that Ford could design a cool car, unlike their rest of their dull lineup. But before long, even with it there began to be some cracks.
In the summers I used to ride my bike to the various car dealers and just walk right into the service areas and hang out for hours, watching the mechanics. I got friendly with one guy at the Ford dealer, and one day he was working on a Bullet Bird, and complaining about how hard they were to work on. It may seem pretty accessible from a modern perspective, but compared to other Fords and earlier cars, the low-slung unibody Thunderbird with its massive shock towers looked mighty crowded under the hood to my eyes, and to his aching hands.
I have always had a habit of wanting to see the undersides of cars, going all the way back to childhood. There were mysteries hidden under the skirts, and although I didn’t always understand what I was looking at, it was a foundational part of my education. I could lay under a car (or in the crawl space or basement of a house) for a very long time, taking it all in. Well, I tried that with that Thunderbird, and…I just couldn’t get under it properly, even in my skinny 10 year-old body. That was something new, and it was a turn-off.
There was just something about these very low and heavy and somewhat ponderous feeling unibody Thunderbirds that didn’t rub me the right way, even at the age of ten. Of course now I understand why, having read a few tales of woe and challenges in maintaining and repairing them here at CC. It’s fascinating how one can pick up things like that at such an early age. And how the resulting prejudices never quite go away, unless they’ve been unfairly acquired.
These lasting influences can bee seen here with our short, narrow and quite tall Chevy Tracker sitting there behind the long, wide and low ‘Bird. By the way, the Tracker lives in Port Orford where it gets put to excellent use in the endless forest roads (and less) in the vast rugged mountains directly to the east of the coast. And it’s never had the slightest issue since we bought it three years ago, with over 222k miles.
The Town original style Hardtop was also available along with the new Town Hardtop for 1966.
Well, the Great Brougham Epoch was now well under way, and the Thunderbird had been something of a pioneer when back in 1962 it offered the Landau version, with a padded vinyl roof and…genuine fake landau bars.
In 1966, it was renamed the Town Landau, with even bigger landau bars. The problem with the Landau was of course mixed metaphors, as it tried to bridge the early-sixties sleek and sporty mid-century modern look with the coming Brougham Era heaviness.
Here’s the pilot retracting the flaps as he’s reached cruising altitude. Actually all that there was up there were warning lights for “door ajar” “low fuel” and “seat belts” and a signal and switch for the emergency flasher. Let’s hope the pilot doesn’t need those.
The T-Birds role spanning two eras was especially apparent in the interior, where its thin shell bucket seats were hardly Brougham-Era correct.
But there were other, more important issues, in the form of the 1963 Buick Riviera. Obviously the Riviera looked years advanced from the rather ’50s dream-car looking Bullet Bird. In fact, the ’63 Riviera was undoubtedly the most forward looking and influential car of its time, heralding several new key trends in GM’s styling and ones that would greatly influence the rest of the industry.
One might have expected something equally ambitious from Ford in the new 1964 Thunderbird, but it was a serious let-down, with its heavy boxy and rectilinear body, it’s broad “shoulders” at the belt line, its fussy front end and gimmicky rear end. The Riviera seems to float; the lacking-in-flair Thunderbird looks utterly earth-bound. The fact that I could slide under the Riviera was bonus points, but the comparison was lost on me well before I ever tried that.
Yes, the Thunderbird continued to outsell the Riviera, as it had built up a very loyal following. But 1964 would be the ‘Bird’s all-time high (93k units), at least until it metamorphosed into a more grande Torino.
The 1966 Riviera upped the ante again, and obviously the ’66 Thunderbird looked even more out of date by then.
And the all-new 1967 Thunderbird failed to close the stylistic gap again. Or did it even widen it, thanks to its gaping baleen-whale maw. The rest of it wasn’t up to snuff either, but of course I see the appeal of them now as period pieces. Or at least I try to. Frankly, the Thunderbird had lost its way some time back; 1964, I’d say.
And from my point of view, it didn’t get it back until 1983, when in a surprising and impulsive move, I actually bought one. Well, it was lighter, shorter ,taller, narrower, and I could sort-of slide under it.
Perhaps most importantly—having heeded my early lesson on the Thunderbird’s crowded engine bay—the little turbo 2.3 four was almost lost in the ’83. And Ford’s new EEEC-IV controlled engine management system and fuel injection meant that it was shockingly devoid of the usual rubber hose spaghetti. Old lessons are deeply etched.
Yes, the turbo four was a bit of a mixed bag, but its ability to cruise effortlessly at 90 or so and still get decent gas mileage was a key feature at the time, just a year or so after the second energy crisis.
As is my wont, I have digressed on my Thunderbird flight of imagination. Let’s get back to this poor old Bird, which reminds me a bit of a dead seagull washed up on the beach.
Its interior is in relatively better shape than its body, although that’s not saying a whole lot.
As is so common, the rarely-used rear seat is in significantly better shape. The curved seatback was the kind of affectation that looked good in paper or in the showroom, but it sure seems a bit contrived for effect, not for actual seating comfort. What exactly was the point? To force you to face a bit inward? Ah yes, to encourage socializing with your rear blind-date seat partner, undoubtedly.
Despite Ford’s claims to the contrary,
The proximity of the Pacific Ocean’s salt has made itself felt on this bird’s tail.
And not just on its tail.
It’s shedding its optional fender skirts. I approve. I’m still surprised at the lack of an opera window, at least on the Landau. But then they would have conflicted with its landau bars.
See what I mean about that engine compartment being a bit stuffed? Looks like mice or some other rodents have made it a home. I’m sure you all know that that’s a 390 cubic inch FE V8 in there, rated at 315 gross hp, unless of course it’s the optional 345 hp 428. Same difference, external size-wise.
Even if it still runs—which wouldn’t surprise me—it’s not going to get this ‘Bird back in the air. It might be able to move it around a bit on terra firma, but that’s not what these were made for.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1965 Ford Thunderbird Landau – Fancy Feast by L. Jones
Curbside Classic: 1961 Ford Thunderbird – The American Dream-mobile by PN
COAL: 1961 Ford Thunderbird – Chapter 11, Wherein Realism Crushes Optimism by JP Cavanaugh
COAL Update: 1963 Ford Thunderbird – No Pain, No Gain by Aaron65
Auto-Biography: 1983 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe – EcoBoosted EgoBooster by PN
1955 Ford Thunderbird – To Be A Sports Car Or Not To Be A Sports Car, That Is The Question by PN
Breaks my heart to see a T-Bird so neglected. Yep, nothing usable on this one. I get the impression you have never been a fan of the Birds. On the other hand I have been attracted to these cars starting in 1957 when I was six years old. Even at a young age my parents always took me car shopping and I had some input. This started at age four when my parents bought a pair of new 1955 Olds 98’s. A 98 Holiday 2-door hardtop for him and a 98 Starfire convertible for her. Both turquoise and white at my request. Later parents bought new a 1960 T-Bird convertible, 1963 hardtop, 1966 Town Landau. The 1963 & 1966 became my first teenager cars. Funny you mentioned the 1966 ad with a pilot. Dad was an Air Force pilot and could handle a B-52, but crashed both my T-Birds. Only slightly held a grudge because he did pay for the cars. Now in my twilight years I am enjoying my 1966 Bird convertible. The car is still a chick magnet, chicks being upper middle aged ladies. So some of you younger men looking to attract an older sugar mama try driving a vintage T-Bird convertible.
The be careful what you wish for adage might apply to the 67 Tbird, it’s certainly not to the same level but I can see the 63 Riviera influence bleeding through here and there, likewise the 1970 fastback somewhat emulating the even sleeker 66 Riv. That to me is why those are considered the decline years of the Tbird, where the flairbird may have had its faults it was undoubtedly an original, and it managed to be an original in a sea of conformity.
I tend to shuffle my classic Thunderbird rankings, and where I used to favor the bullet birds I just see too much Continental in them, they could easily be a Lincoln if not for the distinctive afterburner taillights and I simply like the Continental better as a design, whereas the squarebirds and flair birds couldn’t be anything else but a Thunderbird(for better or worse?) and setting aside the skirts and landau roof 66 is my favorite of the entire 58-66 run, the thin front bumper and full width taillights both took away some of the visual heaviness. Has to be the convertible though, I don’t really find either steel roof treatment to be very pleasing to the lower body shape, that’s one area I think the bulletbirds executed much better despite basically being the same car.
I owned a ’73 T-bird for about 6 months … I was getting disatisfied with it anyway but when the transmission refused to shift, I couldn’t undertake what i thought would be an expensive transmission repair. So I took it to the Ford dealer, where they replaced something called a vacuum modulator; they fixed it rather quickly … probably by reinserting the vacuum line, for 49.95 plus tax.
This prompted me to give my 5-year old T-bird a good clean up, including a weekend wax job … it looked sharp. I then drove my shinny white T-bird with its white leather seats to a “reputable” used car lot where I promptly traded it with 500 bucks on a ’73 Plymouth Gran Coupe that needed a set of tires, thus ending my “fling” with so-called “personal luxury cars.”
My dad told me at the time, “sometimes ‘trading down’ is ‘trading up.’
I passed by the lot a few days later and “my” T-bird was gone … in its place sat a fairly nice, green ’74 Ford LTD … evidently, someone had “traded up.” I certainly did … that tan Plymouth was one of the best cars I’ve ever owned.
I own a 1957 Thunderbird and, unlike Paul, I love my porthole adorned roof (no continental kit though). And no, I cannot slide under it.
Opinions on later Birds vary, but the interiors were exceptional. I always loved the way the console flows up into the dash.
I’ve written before about the beater ’64 Thunderbird that Pop drove in the early 70s, and I have some rear seat memories of that car. I didn’t feel cramped, but I was an 8-year-old kid. However, even with the small quarter windows, it felt claustrophobic. I can’t imagine sitting back there with no quarter window at all.
Good write up. At 38 years of age currently, I never knew of this “Town Hardtop” model of T-Bird. I thought they all had that slender rear window. There is something extremely awkward to my eyes about this Town Hardtop. But always interesting to read about cars from an era in automobiles that I wasn’t around for. Definitely some stylistic quirks there, definitely love it or leave it styling-but still, intriguing to read about. Certainly not the Taurus-ized T-Bird of the 90’s that I grew up with!
Great capture, and analysis. Sad, to see this one go. I’ve never been a PLC fan. Nor a Bird admirer. I found most generations, possessed more individual gimmicky styling elements, than genuine overall beauty. Yes, the roof is not attractive, on this one.
The first Thunderbird (only?), that I genuinely loved for its originality, authenticity, and freshness, was the 1983 Aerobird. I found no pretense in its styling, and it looked leading edge. Which was very appealing. And perhaps the first T-Bird for me, that looked like a guy in his 20’s would drive.
Funny you should mention that Daniel, and anecdotal at best of course, but I was in my 20’s (23.5, actually) when I bought my first T-Bird, and yes, it was a nearly new 1983 model (bought in early 1984).
What can I say? You were obviously bringing sexy back, long before Justin Timberlake. 🙂 haha
Ah yes, that car really did turn heads…. Me? Not so much. 😂🤣
It is sad to see this one going back to nature, as the avian population of these sixties birds is dwindling fast. An endangered species for sure.
I have to agree with Matt above though regarding the convertible being the best looking of the lot. Either hardtop from ‘64 – ‘66 seems a little off with the styling below the belt-line, and the blind-spot for which Ford would later become famous (I’m looking at you, my ‘73 LTD two-door), is freakin’ huge on that Town Hardtop.
Great write-up, Paul! My reactions:
1) When you compare Riviera and Thunderbird profile views, it’s clear that the Riv is so much cleaner of line and more refined. I never noticed this before. I’ve mentioned that the GM cars of the late 50s-early 60s had a certain “rightness” that competitors lacked. Harley Earl, Bill Mitchell and the styling staff really knew what they were doing! (I still love a lot of non-GM cars from this era though).
2) The 60s Thunderbird advertising art is beautiful and shows the cars looking their best. Good choice of “people models” to go with the cars. Iacocca influence: a version of the overhead control panel the pilot is using later showed up on Chryslers of the 80s & 90s.
3) I never thought of the ability to slide under a car as something that would make me like it, but OK. I’ve always been slender so I have done certain things under a car without having to jack it up, like changing oil! I much prefer getting to see the underside of my car when it’s on a lift, and then you can really see everything!
4) There’s a ’59 Continental parked by the side of the road near Doylestown PA which reminds me of this injured ‘Bird. Luckily the Conti is in much better shape and still runs and drives. I would choose this black Lincoln coupe over a ’66 T-Bird, even if most people would not agree with my choice.
Past salvaging perhaps but still chock full of good bits and bobs I see .
-Nate
I’m curious. If a car has been sitting abandoned on public property for a length of time like years, I assume at some point it is deemed abandoned. If that’s the case shouldn’t the county/local government just impound it and then scrap or auction it? In that case it could do some good as a donor car – I don’t think someone just loading it on a trailer and taking it is the right thing to do but it’s sad to see an old car rot like this for year after year.
It appears to be on private property. I think it’s just outside the right of way of the highway, and the other road is actually a private one.