It’s said nostalgia can be a bad thing, but as far as I’m concerned, there’s little shame in it. And the three cars captured in this photo by Passin’Gas provide a great opportunity to indulge in a late ’60s fantasy.
These three cars are a well chosen selection, illustrating the wildly different philosophies of their makers. The Thunderbird is heavy, well isolated, and full of gadgets; the VW is space efficient, slow and austere; and while the Volvo’s format has more in common with the Ford, the philosophy behind its design is more closely aligned with VW’s functional ethos.
I’m not sure I’d want to drive either of the three on a daily basis, given that each is either wallowy, sluggish or hoary. However, the Volvo would be my first choice, as it is closest to the more compact, pert machines American drivers were waiting for, like the BMW 1602, Datsun 510 and VW Rabbit. On that note, let’s hope to get a similarly representative ’70s lineup captured and written up soon.
Nice PV544. I shot one a couple of years ago, but haven’t yet gotten to it, regretfully (along with about 100 other cars not yet written up here yet).
Perry, you would like the 544. A friend of my brother had one, and I spent a fair amount of time in it, including driving it once or twice. A very direct and honest machine, and one that totally established the brand in the US.
They were quite sporty for the times, especially the twin-carb versions, which most of the later ones were. And one could find them readily for cheap back in the late 60s and 70s.
Volvos felt like a really solid and well-built Brit car; which meant fun to drive with a very responsive engine, good handling, but very rugged and reliable, and easy to work on. They really earned their place in the American car market.
Make mine a light blue Duett.
The PV544 was a little before my time but all the 122 and 142 cars were just a blast to drive. They were built like tanks and could take abuse like no other. The B series motor was truly indestructible and made of the highest quality alloys. They were often transplanted in boats they were so reliable. Just a few dollars of easy wrench ons, like bigger carbs and hotter cam could make a 142 a absolute blast to drive. Many were yahooed all over the country roads where I grew up. I had a friend that had NOs on his, and we’d do Duke’s of Hazzard jumps on the hilly country dirt roads. Pitch black and not able to see what’s over the crest of the hill, and these were steep ole BC hills, not them mamby pamby hills you folks out east call, ahem, hills. I never had one, my thing was performing wild antics of sport motorcycles and actually living to write this.
These cars were never cheap. A family friend bought a new 142 sedan in 1973 and paid $8000 for it. That was a lot of coin for a car in ’73.
Actually it is possible to improve pics like this – as an example, here’s a copy of the last one which I tweaked.
I’ll happily take that T-Bird as a daily driver.
A stroked 351 Windsor fitted with aftermarket EFI, mated to a beefed up AOD transmission, riding on heavy duty springs with KYB shocks and oversize Addco sway bars.
I’d take the Tbird too but I’d stick with the FE and add the EFI to it and call it good.
Add a Volvo 740 wagon and a VW Golf to that scene, and you could be looking at almost any stretch of street in Stockholm today. I am exaggerating only slightly!
Do they use road salt in Sweden?
Ive driven VWs as daily cars last one was a 1600 van, out of that trio probably the Volvo would be the best, they had a good rep.$10 gallon gas rules out the Thunderbird on my current income.
That 544’s a real jewel. Solid machines with soul and character that run tirelessly without a whole lot of drama. I had one while in college which was the envy of my peers who were stuck with Triumph Spitfires and Sprites that were always puking oil, coolant or suffering a myriad of electrical failures. I imagine it’s a little more challenging to have one now; parts are likely elusive and expensive.
The Volvo has me curious, but I would still pick the ’64/5 Thunderbird. The FE engine may not be the best in any given category, but it’s a workhorse.
I’d have to go for the VW, but it would have to be a ’71 (this one’s earlier), with disc front brakes and the last of the upright engines. Note how the rear bumper’s been cut on this one? That’s so the engine can be pulled in less than 15 minutes…
It looks to me like what was done to the Bus is someone cut up Beetle bumpers to fit. Chrome is super rare on a Bus, the poor fit also is a clue. At least this one has VW pattern oversize wheels, back in the day Chevy wheels with JC Whitney adaptors were common. And the lugs liked to loosen up on those. All it’s missing is the common fiberglass side scoops and extensions that would go over the hacked up 1/4 panel. Today I would still daily drive that Volvo, use the T Bird as a weekend cruiser and keep the bus for Burning Man or Dead concerts. Disclaimer, never been to either and don’t plan to.
With adam_b’s tweaked photo, I can now see those are Bus bumpers, and the rear goes all the way across. Ever pulled a Bus engine without a floor jack? It is possible with wood blocks and a helper, but I don’t recommend it!
The Volvo would probably make a great daily. I’m sure quite reliable but given the choice of the three I’m sure it would surprise no one who knows me that I’d pick the Bus. Not only do I have an obvious fondness to them but I know them bumper to bumper top to bottom.
It looks to be either a 1964 or 1965. I can’t zoom in enough to see if it has windshield washer nozzles so I can’t be sure.
It looks to be either a 1964 or 1965.
Looks like a 65. The 64 had birds in the taillight lenses. iirc, 65 was the first year for the sequential turn signals.
I’d be partial to the Bird myself, as I had a 67 back when the Earth was young, but really, my tastes have changed over the last 45 years. The cars that get my attention these days are a lot smaller.
The fake air vent in the front fender is another sure indicator it’s a 65.
I was talking about the Volkswagen.
Perry, it’s funny when you say the T-Bird was full of gadgets – I know you’re placing it in its time but compared to today’s cars, even a heavily optioned one is simplicity itself. This turquoise Bird is a 65, my favorite year, mostly because we had one. I suppose the most gadgety thing was the sequential turn signals. 65 was the first year for front disc brakes, a good thing. And the flow-through ventilation system was really great for the time, especially because everyone smoked and throwing that switch on the console would push the blue cloud out the vent under the back window. No question it would be impossible to live with a T-Bird today as the car got about 9 MPG on a good day. They sure are attractive and comfortable cars. Great memories.
I really love that second picture. If the Audi across the street wasn’t in it, I could be convinced that it actually was taken in the early 70s. I’d love to have any one of these cars, even the T-Bird. It’s not my favorite roof ever, but the rest of it is great.
Thunderbird, all day every day. I may not be a secret agent, but I could at least feel like one.
I remember Dad letting me have the T-Bird to go see a new Bond movie with a friend in high school and both of us saying, on the way home, this car makes us feel like we’re part of the movie. Ford was on top of the world (at least as far I was concerned) when the cars they supplied for the Bond movies – Mustang, T-Bird, Lincoln Continental – were in production. Good times.
I would take ANY of these. Theyre lined up in order of my preference, actually. A T-bird of this generation but as a convertible would be my bag. That hardtop always looked like a tacked on shipping crate to me. I definitely like split window VW busses, especially with the ‘baja’ style wheels. No hippie vans for me…make it either a slammed surf mobile or a knobby tired boonie basher. Those Volvos are cool looking but I literally know nothing about them. Looks like a fun ride though, and Ive always liked the idea of a turbo’d Volvo wagon or coupe.