(first posted 10/21/2014) What exactly is the American Dream? Was it easier to answer that question fifty years ago? If you were seven years old, and had just arrived from Austria at the same time the 1961 Thunderbird first appeared, the answer is definitely yes. What more was there to aspire to then this? Seeing fifty of these convertibles in Kennedy’s Inaugural Parade only cemented the image. In America anyone could realistically aspire to own a car that actually looked like a Dream Car in a car show, one that would glamorously jet you away from the humdrum of ordinary life, if not exactly rocket you to the moon. Yes, in the fall of 1960, Ford was building my dream. And then I was rudely awakened.
Just three years later, both the stunning 1961-1963 “Bullet Bird” and Kennedy were gone. The squared-off, fussy 1964 T-Bird confirmed my defection to the Church of St. Mark of Excellence, and my brief childhood love affair with Ford was mostly over. In my dream driveway, the T-Bird was were replaced by an ever changing palette of GM’s finest. The American Dream has never been a static affair.
Was 1961 Ford’s finest hour, at least for a very long time to come? In my book, yes. I have mixed feelings about Ford’s late fifties styling, and that extended to the 1958 – 1960 “Square Bird”, regardless of how revolutionary a car it was. They impressed me on some level, the interior, mainly, but I though their front ends looked like a hideous creature from the depths of the ocean. I guess the public didn’t quite agree with me, because the Square Bird outsold the Bullet Bird, right through its last year (1960). Everyone’s dream is different.
The highlight of my fling with the 61-63 T-Bird came when we were on vacation in NY, and I saw a red Sports Roadster in the flesh for the first time (there were none in Iowa City). Available for 1962 and 1963, the fiberglass cover over the rear seats was meant to evoke the original two-seat T-Bird. Of course it was a bit ridiculous, but don’t tell that to an eleven year-old agog, or the proud driver.
It evoked the classic roadsters of the thirties, with their long tails and no pretense of practicality. And it was about as sporty as they were, but who cared? The T-Bird had long ago ceded that role to the Corvette, while it was laughing all the way to the bank. The big Birds outsold the ‘Vette by almost ten to one. McNamara made the right call when he backed the big change to four-passenger Birds in 1958. And the T-Bird practically owned the market segment it created, for way longer than GM would have liked, despite everything they threw at it.
Has anyone thought about how the poor Mercury dealers felt during the T-Bird’s heyday? What was Ford doing selling such an upscale and exclusive car anyway, especially when it sported the optional (and popular) Landau package? Sucks to be them, then and more recently. Mercury was doomed anyway; Ford just didn’t do the multiple brand thing well, and at least they’ve finally embraced that reality now. But where’s today’s Dream Car by Ford?
The 1961 Thunderbird might well have looked very different than it turned out. Elwood Engel’s design proposal (above) lost out to the winning one by Bill Boyer and others. Does Engel’s proposal look familiar? Ford President Robert McNamara ran into it by accident, liked it, and had it turned into the 1961 Lincoln. That was convenient for production reasons too, allowing both cars to share aspects of their unibody innards.
The most dramatic and original feature of the Bullet Bird is the sharp blade that serves as its belt line. It rises from the steeply sloping front end, that was way too un-American for Americans, lacking a big open mouth. It may well be why the Bullets sold less than both the Square birds before it and the Flair birds after it. I’m sure you’re not surprised when I reiterate that it’s by far the best of the bunch: clean, original, (mostly) lacking the clutter of group-think throwing too many styling gimmicks at it.
The blade does double duty as my favorite door handle ever. Maybe the least ergonomic ever. Don’t the doors open telepathically? Nothing’s ever been done just quite like this, although the ’61 Conti does give it a run for the money. Gives the term “knife edge design” new meaning.
Mustn’t neglect the Bullet’s red-hot jet exhaust with after-burner nozzles.
Sadly, there was only an internal combustion engine at work under the hood. I have vivid memories of gazing into the T-Bird’s engine room as a kid hanging out in the work bays at the Ford dealership. I always felt sorry for the mechanics that had to work on them; they were the most crowded of any car back then. The giant flat air cleaner and the separate tank for the side-flow radiator were distinctive, concessions to the tight clearances around the 390 CID FE motor. Rated at 300 (gross) hp, it moved the ‘Bird well enough, but hardly with any genuine thunder.
This was a porky fowl (4,000+ lbs), several hundred pounds more than a bigger Galaxie. Their unibodies didn’t necessarily save weight, having been designed in the pre-CAD era. “Better to overbuild than not”, that was the Wixom mantra.
And no one is going to accuse these Thunderbirds of actual sporting qualities; any pretensions to that were fully abandoned when the format went to a four-passenger personal luxury coupe.
Their dynamic qualities were best left to the realm of dreams or movies (these two shots are from the movie “Palm Springs”). No, that’s not diesel soot, but an FE at full chat, in the pre-EPA era. They were rather fond of their liquid hydrocarbon diet.
And watch where you drive that thing; these cars probably set an all-time low for clearance, which only got worse as the springs sagged in old age.
Who cared about such mundane matters, when you’re ensconced in that cockpit, the swing away steering wheel back where it belongs, and piloting down that glassy smooth new pavement of the just-built interstate? The Thunderbird’s interior was at least as enchanting for me as the exterior. When you’re used to being packed into our 62 Fail-lane sedan with too many siblings with whom skin contact was not exactly desirable, just the idea of bucket seats separated by that huge expanse of console was dreamy.
Now that I really think about it, that may just have been the biggest attraction of the Thunderbird to me. It represented true freedom… from being sandwiched between a pesky big brother and a sweet but sticky little one. All my dream cars back then had bucket seats, even the lowly Falcon Futura. My brief infatuation with a neighbor’s ’58 Impala coupe ended with the front bench seat; What! no buckets? I arrived in America exactly at the right moment: the beginning of the bucket seat era. And the T-Bird played a key role in ushering it in.
It may have looked dreamy to a seven-year-old, but that big console was there pretty much out of necessity: to hide or cover the inordinately large central tunnel, necessary because the unibody ‘Bird sat so low, and because it served as an important structural member.
Finding this particular convertible Bird was a dream fulfilled (they become more modest with age). I’d seen it on the road in the summer, piloted by a guy in his early thirties or so, and obviously driving home from work. I was going the other way with a huge load of compost in the back of my old Ford truck, and I just had to abandon any hope of giving chase, especially since he’s a spirited driver. But rarely have I been more eager to find a car after I first saw it; it fulfills the highest aspirations of CC: a significant historical car being used as daily driver. Plenty of patina, and the baby seat in the back just cements it.
The interior is a little worse for wear, and the rain shower that started minutes after I took these shots probably didn’t help. But chrome and vinyl were built tough back in the day, and what’s a little dust and grime on the console to keep from enjoying this beast, rain or shine?
Someone is living out their dream with this car, even if it isn’t the same one I once had. It certainly isn’t the American Dream anymore, but then what is? We can’t agree on anything anymore, never mind a collective dream. But as long as folks like this T-Bird owner are tooling home from work with the top down, rain or shine, the Dream is alive, even if it is a bit grimier than it was in 1961.
Fabulous summary of what the bullet bird was and why it mattered.
The 61 is my favorite of the series for looks – it was the cleanest in details. However, the 62 or 63 is better to own. The 61 had a front suspension that was hard to keep in alignment, and a odd design for the front shackle of each rear leaf spring that allowed too much motion in the rear suspension.
Mine was a worn out POS that lured me in with that stunning interior. Unfortunately, I saw the car in the old ads, when mine actually looked more like this one. I used to enjoy just sitting and looking at it, and I never got tired of sitting in it, gazing at that fabulous dash.
Agree that it’s a wonderful summary–top-notch as usual. And the car? Simply amazing. The “bullet birds” are by far my favorites overall in the styling department, and I concur that the ’61 with its cleaner details is the pick of the 3. I can deal with the extra hashes on the ’62 rear flanks, but the extra character line and hashes on the door of the ’63 kind of spoil it.
As good as the interior is on these, I think the “flair birds” had an even better cockpit. But these are the lookers of the family, no question. From a short moment when Ford, not GM, held the attention of the eyes of the nation.
For me the “Bullet Birds” are absolutely the best looking ones of the bunch. Can’t explain it logically but both the hardtop and the convertible just look like you would expect a Thunderbird to look. In an ideal world, one where I had unlimited amounts of money and storage space for old cars, a 1963 Thunderbird convertible would be on the must have list. To paraphrase jpcavanaugh above, even if I didn’t drive it very much it would be worth having just to look at.
“even if I didn’t drive it very much it would be worth having just to look at.”
That was pretty much all mine was good for. 🙂
Wow , just wow .
I remember these new and when they’re were used up , worn out beaters in about four short years in New England .
I vividly remember the clapped out one Cliff Blake had on his clip joint car lot in New Hampshire in 1967 only $300 so one of my Teachers bought it , not knowing Cliff was (in)famous for peddling barely running junkers to suckers .
His one had cute little puffs of smoke coming out of a blown head gasket , my Teacher was from India and had no concept of anything mechanical obviously .
My self , I’d rather have a ’62 Galaxie two door , this big old ‘Bird has the 12 turns +/- lock to lock steering I’ve mentioned before , not fun to drive at speed although *very* entertaining and often alarming to your passengers .
Still , a *very* pretty car inside and out .
-Nate
My whole Freshman year in college, one of these (hardtop) parked just outside my dorm window. It belonged to the dean, who lived in an apartment connected to my dorm building. It was a great view.
Hah, I just love how the owners have put the infant car seat right smack in the middle of the rear seat. Probably the only place they could do so.
It’s the safest place.
I was never fond of these – though clean-looking, much too ponderous. I prefer the 1965 T-Birds, instead.
Unfortunately for Ford, 1965 was when dad brought home his fabulous 1960 Impala sports sedan and my interest in cars was awakened and I have been indoctrinated by Chevrolet ever since – nothing wrong with that!
I know they look a little like hovercrafts but I think this is also my favorite.
An old guy who had a used car lot in Nashville had one in a gorgeous blue color, just sitting out in the elements with the top down. A shame. The tires were green with rot. I’d drive by in my ’92 Bird and get so sad.
The ’61-’63 T-Birds will forever be my favorite iteration.
Every single design cue is flawless, from the front to the rear…even the different spots they put the little chrome doodads on the sides every year. Door? OK. Back fender? Groovy.
They all looked perfect to my eye as a kid, and they still do…those taillights especially. It’s the whole package. The fact that it was designed by the same man who designed the Tucker is of interest…I did not know that before now.
But yes, the Landau Bars were misbegotten. In contrast, the convertible with the tonneau cover that comes up to the seat backs is “IT”…the epitome of early ’60s design.
The ones that came immediately before were grotesque to my eye. The ones that followed immediately after were awkward, with all those squared off edges where before had been curvy goodness. The ’61-’63 embodied “The Jet Age” styling with perfection.
Hopefully someone finds it in their heart to give this Bird a little TLC.
I remember seeing one of these when I was a schoolboy the UK, wondering whether it was a larger version of the Ford Corsair (just single headlights on those) https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7172/6772732199_6482552698_z.jpg.
The bullet-bird makes a great looking convertible and the rear seat covers, though they could be regarded as frivolous given its non-sporting handling, really set it off.
Although not exactly my kind of car, the Bullets have always appealed to me. An older, slightly creepy guy at my first job in high school had one, a ’63. His was a hardtop, bronze colored with white top and interior. It was ten years old at the time and a bit past its prime, but I always admired the overall look as well as the details. Paul, I agree with you about the door handles.
Another great T-bird article from CC! I don’t have much to add except that the nickname for the 61-63 was Banana Bird when I was growing up. I remember the first time I heard that, I knew exactly which one it was.
The 58-60 didn’t have a nickname but later when I heard Square Bird I knew which one it was. I have never associated a nickname with the 64-66, though have heard Flair Bird from Laurence. Those are not the caricatures that the earlier cars were and it’s hard for a name to stick. I think in time those will become the Thelma & Louise Bird.
For me the Landau version of the 61-63 is what started the Brougham era. Banana Birds looked more expensive than any Cadillac, the paint and chrome in particular were of exceptional quality. They must have been well-built too because they lingered as daily drivers in my town until the late 70s.
The best looking T bird.the previous models looked good,this generation better.The next T birds didn’t look quite as nice,still good looking though.The less said about the 67 the better
When I see that prominent middle console, I’m instantly reminded of modern Volvos – now I know where they got the idea from 🙂
As for exterior, I like both this generation (’61-’63) as well as the next one (’64-’66), but my favorite T-birds (looks-wise) are those that not many other people like, namely the ’67-’69 models with their ‘jet intake’ front end (similar late 60s Chargers, for example) – I can never get tired of that look. Can’t wait for that part of this T’bird week…
Perhaps my fondness for this generation of Bird stems from the two toy T-Birds I had as a kid. Both were battery operated and both allowed you to put the roof up and down and run the car forward and back.
I always lied then styling of these cars as they represented to me then little boy a future of space travel and streamlined cars. Years laterm a friend bought a used Thunderbird Roadster as shown in this feature. It performed well but it’s styling is what captured my attention. Sadly the car never remained with him and is now being enjoyed by someone else.
” I have mixed feelings about Ford’s late fifties styling, and that extended to the 1958 – 1960 “Square Bird”, regardless of how revolutionary a car it was. They impressed me on some level, the interior, mainly, but I though their front ends looked like a hideous creature from the depths of the ocean.”
I absolutely hate the Square Bird design. Too overwrought, too gimmicky, way too much gingerbread. A pretentious machine dolled up for the Sunday morning services, like your Aunt Hilda with too much makeup and her gaudiest Sunday finest. Compared to that, the sportier Bullet Bird represented sweet, sweet freedom from all that.
And then the Flair Bird reeled that back in by adding all the pretentious cues that made Americans go gaga over the Square Bird onto that poor Bullet Bird body. Years later, it went all Elvis on us. Shame.
My favourite of all the ‘Birds – bullet style convertible, in black. One of the very few ragtops that look good with the top up.
I love the bullet Bird, and if money weren’t an issue, I’d have one of every year. To me they always looked best in white or black. white because it showed off the “afterburner” tail lights best, and black because they looked more less saggy somehow.
My favourite Ford, the T-Bird from ’58 through to ’68, they just seemed to me more “American” than any other car on the road, including anything from Cadillac or Lincoln.
I’ve always loved this generation of T-bird. To me it epitomises what the whole T-bird thing is (or should be) about. They lost their distinction (in my eyes) with the ’70 “hunchbird”, and became just another American Anycar.
Those door handles look to have been inspired by the rear door handles on a PA-series Vauxhall. The handle part is faired into the fin chrome, and the button stands alone. I was fascinated by these odd handles as a kid – don’t ask me why!
I like the looks of these from most angles, but I’ve never felt the nose treatment looked quite right. There’s nothing inherently wrong with recessed lights, but I think they need to be integrated into either a bigger space or some more dynamic graphic or they look off.
The trouble with the Bullet Bird’s front clip is that while it’s tidy, it doesn’t have much to say. The chrome lip on the leading edge of the hood highlights the headlight coves, but they’re just bland ellipses — there’s no interesting detailing, no particular aggression, they’re just kind of there. The grille itself is just a texture filling negative space; that would be fine if it were offsetting some bold shape, but it isn’t. There’s no charisma.
The thickness of the aforementioned chrome lip also has the unfortunate effect of making any slight trim misalignment or inconsistency in the gap between the hood and the grille readily apparent even from a distance. Obviously, the designer isn’t responsible for panel gaps, but creating designs with tolerances demanding a level of precision you just weren’t going to get from a Detroit assembly line wasn’t the best choice.
So, what you have is a car that looks clean, bold, and crisp in profile or from the rear, but that seems to have run out of ideas at the nose, which is unfortunately the area most people look at first when deciding whether a car looks good or not.
If I were better at “photo chops,” I would be tempted to see what this would look like with the gaping-maw grille of the ’67 Thunderbird. It might be horrible, admittedly, although I suppose it would at least be more in keeping with the jet fighter theme, giving it a “stovepipe” intake to match the afterburner taillights.
I never really thought about it that way before, but now that I am, I think the front end actually forces you to take in the car as a whole. In both frontal 3/4 views you can hardly see any of the actual grille. Looking at almost any other early ’60s car from that perspective, the grille would be the most prominent feature. As hard as I try to focus on the front end in that top picture, my eyes keep wanting to go towards the rear. If viewed only from the front, I do see what you’re saying… but once you’ve seen the rest of the car, it’s burned into your brain. I doubt that was actually the intention of the designers, but that’s how I see it.
I kind of see what you’re saying, but I love the front end of the Bullet-bird just the way it is.
Also, I don’t see this design as mimicking a jet fighter, but a sci-fi rocket ship or a rocket plane like the Bell X-1 series. A rocket has a sleek, pointed nosecone without an air intake. The need for a grille on the car at all is a concession to the reality of having a gas engine under the hood.
THIS .
As one who was there when they were new , they were NEW ! Exciting ! SPACE AGE !! .
Yet , still Conservatively designed as was every other 1961 Automobile .
-Nate
These are beautiful cars and are my favorite T-Bird of the four seat models. Agree the straight on nose view is it’s weakest styling area. It begs for a more modern headlamp design, but was forced to use round sealed beams because of lighting laws of the time. I have heard it referred to as the ‘banana nose’. The windshield and greenhouse also look a little tall. But you have to have enough headroom, and I still think it’s a great looking car.
Well it beats square sealed beams!
This nearly made me puke .
-Nate
That is a tragedy. It’s almost like they grafted on the nose of a 3rd gen Camaro. Actually, it would probably look better if they actually had used the nose from a Camaro. They shaved off the fins from the back too.
Maybe Ford didn’t do such a bad job after all.
I think not , not a bad job atall .
I’m a Bowtie Guy ’till I die but I have had numerous Ford products from the 1920’s to 1982 and all of them did what they were designed to do just fine and in most cases , I liked both the styling and ergonomics .
I doubt I’ll ever buy a T – Bird like these but they’re still mighty fine cars IMO .
And yes , I have hot changed plenty of Y Block starters in August plus bled out the cooling systems and changed that flusherginner V8 by pass water hose in 125* heat so don’t go telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about here .
-Nate
I guess I’m nuts but I love these yet can’t warm up to the iconic ’61-’65 Continental with its palpable similarities. The T Bird works so well for me here.
I prefer the 63s of this particular body to the rest, the styling looks a little TOO clean on the 61&62s for my taste but I find them all beautiful. I have to agree with Ate Up With Motor on the front end though, I find the body absolutely gorgeous, as well as the tailend since I seem to be an oddball who uses those areas to decide whether it looks good or not, so the front end never bothered me, yet never enthralled me either, hadn’t really thought about why but that pretty much explains it. I think the flairbird front ends were very attractive though, imagine the 64 nose on a bullet body, Yum!
I think you were primed to fall for the ‘bird:
Though not my favorite, I still like the Bullet Birds, mostly because they so vivdly recall the dawn of the Space Age, a time when the United States could do no wrong. In 1961, my first choice would be a hot, Wide-Track Pontiac Ventura bubble-top, but the Bullet Bird is still plenty cool in its own right.
Makes a great road racer too.
I think the ’61 Thunderbird styling was originally intended for the Lincoln, and the ’61 Continental styling for the T-Bird. I have this idea that the more minimalist design of the Continental might have worked better on the smaller T-Bird body, and the more flamboyant “bullet bird” would be better suited to the larger Lincoln. Some could say the bullet styling looks too big and boaty on a “nimble” T-Bird, while the large expanses of flat, boxy sheet metal make the large Lincoln look too plain. I’m trying to picture how the ’61 Lincoln with 4 doors (123″ WB) would look styled like the ’61 Thunderbird.
What became the production 1961 Continental originated as a styling proposal for the 1961 Thunderbird – as the article notes – but the original design for the 1961 Lincoln was not what became the actual Thunderbird.
The original plan was to offer a cleaned up, and slightly smaller, version of the 1958-60 Lincoln/Continental.
The suave and sophisticated Paul Drake behind the wheel of his T-Bird with his client Perry Mason standing alongside. From the episode ‘The Case of the Brazen Bequest” (2 Dec. 1961).
The more I drive my ’63, the more I feel like I’ve won something. I just took it for a quick spin around town, and it really is a special car.
To me, this was the model driven by the heroine in the Beach Boy’s “Fun, Fun, Fun”. Not a Square Bird, not if daddy was as rich as the song intimated.
I have to enthusiastically agree Paul, the ’61-63 T-Birds were my favorites for all the Thunderbirds ever built. Maybe it had something to do with the era; John Kennedy had been elected President in 1960 and there was this feeling of confidence across the land that the T-Bird represented. Sadly, it would not last long, but at the time it was a wonderful feeling.
So true. There was an energy, a vibe that just permeated the entire country at that time. Wages and spending power were rising. Everyone had a job. More and more were attending college and for those who didn’t, high wage, blue collar jobs were readily available. Made in America meant you were getting the best. We were the undisputed leader of the free world. Vietnam was some far away place that few had heard of. The future seemed so bright.
It’s fitting that JFK’s last personal car was a ‘61 white T Bird convertible. It just embodied the era so much.
This faked patina example was near home as the hero car for location shooting. My Skylark was used in one shoot.
I was 10 years old in 1961. My Dad worked for a bank in the repo department. Whenever they would go out and grab cars,he would bring them home for a couple days before going to the compound. One morning i got up and could not believe what was in the driveway. 1961 Thunderbird convertible. A cream exterior with a cream leather interior and white top.I was speechless.To this day i still get goosbumps thinking about the top going to rest under the trunk. It was a stunning experience that after 62 years amazes me still.