I remember the shock of seeing this maw for the first time in the fall of 1966: Wow, That’s different! And it was, quite a lot so, actually. And it was certainly no more bold, aggressive and challenging then the 2021’s Avalon’s front end, or for that matter, a number of Toyota and Lexus models in the past few years.
Ha! I see what you did there! The T-Bird has something the Avalon doesn’t – hidden headlights. I know that at the time many people didn’t like them for several reasons – freezing up, equipment failures, gimmicky – I love them! I actually have 2 cars with hidden headlights (and both operate) – a 68 Caprice and a 70 Charger.
The other difference is that the T-Bird has a bumper, the grille is protected. Part of what frustrates people about the “maw” trend is that the grille is exposed and open for damage. In fact one of the marketing ideas for the loop bumper was to protect the grille. Look at any urban photo from the era and many people added oversize bumper guards to protect the front end.
As those maw grilles age, the plastic will become brittle and we will see many gap-toothed vehicles running around. Unless of course the Chinese aftermarket fills the void!
The hidden headlights are indeed a distinction, but the criticism for modern car front ends is the grill–always the grill. Gape-mawed, Predator-faced, fish-faced, balleen whale, etc. Always the grill, never the headlights. So for anyone who likes this 68’s styling but dislikes the modern cars, I’m curious as to why headlights make the difference.
To me, this thunderbird is as unsettling for the same reason as the Avalon–we anthropomorphize fascias into faces, and both of this are distorted from that perspective, and therefore unsettling. If the Avalon Is Predator, the Thunderbird is the mutant worm from Tremors. The deadlight distinction only makes it a different kind of ugly.
The grille is obviously a huge point of frontal visual differentiation. As you and others more or less pointed out elsewhere, a couple of normal headlights, a 3:1 ratio rectangle grille and a bumper across the front then invites the opposite criticism, i.e. it’s too boring and all cars “look the same”. Woe to the someone that dares to color outside the lines a bit, then it’s “what a freakshow”. The vehicles with the most “traditional” front ends are now the pickup trucks, but almost uniformly “way too large” while many of the EVs that try to minimize or remove the grille are “uh, it looks weird” and those that do incorporate one get the “why is there a grille when it doesn’t need one, how fake”.
Say what one will about the Avalon (or plenty of others of course) but one can’t hate and remark on the large grille specifically and then also be the same person to remark that all new vehicles look the same and one can’t tell any of them apart. I presume it was the same in ’68 with this T-bird. The cars that DO have the uniform grille, headlights, and bumper, i.e. pretty much the very early 1980s are the perfect poster child for this (Caprice, Celebrity, etc, various K-cars, Ford LTD/Crown Vic, Fairmont, all couldn’t look more similar if they used a cookie cutter yet it seems extremely rare for anyone on this site to not be able to tell one from the other while blindfolded in the pitch dark and facing away from the car itself that’s inside a locked garage with the door closed…
“Woe to the someone that dares to color outside the lines a bit, then it’s “what a freakshow”.”
Agreed. I remember not being crazy about the headlights on the Gen 5 Prelude but then realized I wouldn’t be looking at them from the Driver’s Seat.
Then you have all the “amateur styling critics” driving clapped-out Nissans and Kias well into six-digits on the odometer who “wouldn’t consider a Lexus with that front end.” Yeah, Lexus is really losing sleep…
Jim,
We disagree about the Avalon grille, but we should agree on one thing.
32″ inseam blue jeans are very easy to find. They’re just right there on the middle shelf pretty much everywhere.
-TheMann-Making Our World Better One Dumb Comment At A Time.
Sleep easy, America. You’re welcome. 🇺🇸
For me the hidden headlights on the T-bird don’t make my brain try to see it as a face. It makes me see it as an air intake on a machine.
With modern LED headlights, it’s getting easier to “hide” the headlights in the grille in plain sight (when they are off)
The high beams in the new KIA Carnival van for example, are nearly invisible when off.
Call me in the distinct minority, but I love these T-Birds, especially in four-door guise (OK, I could do without the Landau bars), while simultaneously hating the Avalon. I agree with JB – I think the hidden headlights make a big difference here.
Fellow square bird fan. I think they lost the plot in 70. 67 to 69 are beautiful inside and out.
While not really a fan of either the 1967 or 1968 T-bird (although they’re still quite a bit better than some other years), I think I prefer the slightly less busy grille of the ’67. Plus, the ’67 doesn’t have side marker lights, either.
In fact, when I think about it, it seems like whenever there was a new model Thunderbird, those first year cars were generally the best, with the follow-up, slightly freshened cars coming off a bit worse.
And I still think the ’21 Avalon is more old-school Buick in appearance, back when Buicks had big, toothy grilles.
I always liked the ’67 – ’68 T-Birds, my brother had a nice Brittany blue ’67. The new Avalon’s don’t bother me much, but don’t get me going on the gaping maw’s of the BMW SUV’s!!
I don’t quite remember how I felt about ” this look ” when it debuted in 1967, I think that I was more fixated on the heresy of a Thunderbird with 4 doors. What next, a station wagon Thunderbird?
I do remember, as this model was improved in 68 and 69, that I didn’t care for the tweeking that was done to the front grille and the tail light panel as I felt the 67 was classical while the 68 and 69 were a bit gaudy., while the 70 (even with its Bunkie beak) was a return to a more classy style.
I think what bothers me about the Avalon, and many other cars from many different manufacturers is that this and similar front end treatments look like attempts by stylists to push the envelope. Like the companies may even be trying to see how outrageous they can make a car look…and still get respectable sales numbers. Look at an Audi from the early 70s and look at a 2021 model…there is another overly huge/ugly front end treatment.
I don’t know, but maybe the difference between this Thunderbird and the latest Avalon is the feeling I get that the effect the styling the Avalon wants customers to experience is HUGELY MASCULINE AGGRESSION, while the Thunderbird was striving to get customers to experience a new type of calming style.
(This isn’t easy to put into words before my first morning cup of coffee.)
Yup. There was a brief trend from ’68 to ’73 in the same direction as the modern Archer Fish monsters. Huge mouths aimed downward, with no eyes and no bumper. The ’74 bumper rules put an end to this trend, which was a good thing at the time.
Oops, Angler Fish, not Archer Fish. Need more coffee.
Even at a young age, I liked these big birds. I don’t recall criticism of the front ends, but then I was 13, 14 years old when the 68, 69 models were out.
Looking at them now and having ridden in a 69 four door Landau T-Bird my friend’s parents had, they were quite a car with amazing ride and comfort.
No, I do like these, and loathe the Avalon.
The Landau bars on these is what ruins them entirely. But the front, well, this is where the Wallace and Gromit picture really fits!
Was never a big fan of the ’68 T-Bird or the similar looking ’68 Toronado. But they were never as off putting as the current designs.
If I had to drive one of the latest offerings, I’d just back the car into the driveway.
That way the neighbors would have to look at it!
Which reminds me of the 1970’s “cut”.
“If I had a dog with a face like yours, I’d shave his ass and make him walk backwards”
There’s a lot of overdone, overstyled, garish, rocket-age styling from 1950s-1960s Americana that is inexplicably beloved while modern cars come in for heavy reflexive criticism for less outlandish and childish designs. Six decades of nostalgia and familiarity doesn’t erase fundamental design flaws to me, but I’m the minority there.
Because we should know better now.
Been there, overdone that.
Its cute when a baby spills his food bowl over and makes babbling noises. Less cute when a fully capable adult does it.
I agree in part, but that doesn’t explain love for the old ugly and disdain for the new one.
The problem automakers are facing is that there are dozens of car models in the US market alone, most of which undergo redesigns every 5 years or so. Good luck to them creating something both distinctive and not overblown. Tough job.
Actually I think a lot of old stuff looks bad. I would take any silly/grilly Toyota over anything with big fins. Big fins are just gross to me. I’m definitely a ’55 Bel Air over the ’57 kind of guy.
In my perfect world, carmakers would leave well enough alone looks-wise and just make them mechanically better. But its the sizzle that sells I suppose. I’m disappointed that “aggressive and angry” style has had so much more staying power than clean/pretty styling has.
In addition to my ’03 Avalon, to me an almost perfect car, I have a near-mint 60,000 mile 2000 Concorde that I find damn pretty inside and out. I love it just for it’s looks.
When it gets its Chrysler-problems I will drive the Avalon.
There has been much criticism of certain 1950’s excess by myself and others, not only on this site, and other sites, but in magazines, newspapers, etc. going back for decades.
From the 1950 Buick grille to the overwrought 1958 designs, which some feel helped prolong the recession of that year with their poor sales.
The ’58-’60 Continentals have had plenty of critical comments.
It seemed that the ugliest cars had a short design life, 1 to 3 years at most.
The current designs have been around for longer than that and show no signs of abating.
Personally, I don’t care for them. Therefore, I’m not buying what is an
‘ugly to me’ vehicle.
But then, no manufacturer really cares what I think!
Kitsch has no appeal to you? The style they pioneered is still with us, cars have never stopped having fake vents and splitters and evidence of their “propulsion”. Cars almost became appliances with no grills or style in the 80’s, but the Countach saved that.
I’ve always liked the tail-feathers on this generation of ‘Birds.
I’ve never disliked the jet intake on these, but still prefer the later Bunkie Beak versions. If anything, while not my favorite generation, the Bunkie Beak, combined with the taillight treatment on these, makes the car actually look like a bird.
I agree with others regarding the landau bars. The convertible was discontinued for this generation. Why have fake bars that would indicate you can lower the top? And on a 4-door yet…. That was not a “better idea” from Ford.
I like the T-Bird.
I don’t like modern grilles.
Its all about me, dontcha know?
Not all grills are created equal.
That’s an odd picture considering the Thunderbird’s mouth bears a striking resemblance to this:
Yes, definitely not Angelina Jolie
The old Alfa Remora!
Rocky Horror Picture Show fan?
Not really a fan of the 68 bird or modern gaping maw grille treatment zero grille isnt so good either like the 66-71 Zephyrs.
While the 68 Thunderbird grille was interesting when I saw it I don’t recall it being that obvious or over the top. I do believe the photographic perspective in the ad does play up the size of the grille a little bit in respect to the rest of the car.
The Avalon does look massive in person in respect to the car. Needless to say I’ll never grasp why grilles are so massive on most all cars today. It is not needed for any mechanical or functional reason I know of. I am also not a fan of all the squinty headlights which remind me of someone cheating to read an eye chart.
I don’t think either one is great looking. They both look like big electric razors.
+1 I like a lot of headlights hidden in grille cars(Charger, Cougar Camaro RS etc) but these birds were never my favorite execution, I like the Bunkie beaks better
This is a good point. Closely checking the grille area of modern vehicles reveals that much of the grille is blocked off with a much smaller open area. AFAIK, the majority of the cooling intake is located underneath the front bumper fascia and the grille intake goes mostly to the air cleaner.
I think that the Avalon needs landau bars.
The hidden headlights as mentioned are key, I never particularly liked this generation Tbird but as much of a gaping maw as it has its still less busy than the Avalon, which has the headlights up top with a little grille protruding between them(it would actually look very conventional if that small section was just the grille and the huge lower one were just body colored bumper). For the Tbird to look like that you’d need to stack a flairbird on top of a 68
This really deserves a post of its’ own. It’s brilliant.
Nice!
Thought of this…
I remember reading a review of this car when it was new (although I don’t remember where – advancing CRS Disease) wherein the reviewer suggested that the body had been designed by a committee, and that everybody got their own way. A very polarizing design at the time.
BTW the T-Bird front end is a crib of the ’62 Olds with headlights hidden.
I like it. In fact, if they sold a novelty electric shaver shaped like one, I’d buy it in a heartbeat.
The 1968 T-Bird inspired the 1971-1974 “Kujira” S60/S70 Toyota Crown. The front end, the side profile as well as the taillights.
I did not like the look of the Thunderbird when it came out, It had a face like a giant air induction and was an enormous, fat barge. I thought it would have been better as a small Lincoln. What I liked were the posh interior and the suicide doors.
To me it illustrated the problems of having too many car brands and not enough good ideas to spread around to justify all of those redundant platforms. Eventually the industry arrived at the same conclusion and killed Plymouth, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Saturn and Mercury.
The tidal forces of the economy and the auto industry have changed direction and are pushing toward the “everybody needs an SUV” singularity. How many variations of that idea do we need to get before everyone gets sick of them and there is some further brand elimination?
You’re right. I dislike both of ’em.