(originally posted 6/11/2011) In 1992, Ross Perot mounted a 3rd party run for president. He chose as his running mate Admiral James Stockdale. The Admiral had a distinguished record, but chose to introduce himself to the American public in a debate by asking: “Who am I? Why am I here?” The Admiral got through the debate and the campaign without really answering those questions. What has Admiral Stockdale got to do with the 67-68 Thunderbird? Like the Admiral, the Ford Thunderbird came to us with a very impressive history. And the 67 model asked the very same questions. And, like the Admiral, the 67 T-Bird never really came up with the answers.
I never understood this car. I mean, just what was it, exactly? Even though I was 8 years old when the 67 Bird came out, I knew what the car was NOT. Sure, it had that wrap-around back seat and sequential turn signals, but the car was NOT a Thunderbird. A Thunderbird, you see, had a certain flair, dash, savoir faire. Even though this car made the cut for the original lineup of Hot Wheels cars in 1967, I was not fooled. This car just lacked that certain something that made a Thunderbird.
If you had told someone in 1950 that someday it would be socially acceptable to be driving a Ford to the country club or in the more exclusive suburbs, you would have been laughed at. The Thunderbird was the car that began Ford’s move up the social ladder. After the initial 2 seaters, the Thunderbird really hit its stride with the first 4 seater in 1958. This car and all that came after it for most of the next decade made it perfectly natural for high-income buyers to park a Ford in the garage.
This Thunderbird, however, was something different. Maybe it was just 1967. 1967 wasn’t so much a year, as a transition between other years, other eras even. It wasn’t Rat Pack yet it wasn’t Woodstock. It wasn’t Bryll Cream, but it wasn’t a blow-dry either. Neither Jack Kennedy nor Richard Nixon. Not bucket seats and floor shifts nor fat side moldings and opera windows. Well, you get the idea. So, in a way, this Thunderbird and 1967 were made for each other. But while 1967 eventually ended late in December, this Thunderbird had to stick around for a few more years.
Maybe the Thunderbird was doomed because Ford’s product planners were finishing up on the car that would doom it. The Thunderbird had never really been meant for Fairlane customers or Galaxie customers. The Thunderbird was aimed at Lincoln buyers. T-Birds shared garages with a lot of Continentals back then, or were bought by those who could afford a Lincoln but wanted something more sporting. But many of those buyers would desert the Bird for the Continental Mark III when it hit Lincoln showrooms in 1968, making the Thunderbird something it had never been before – the Ford luxury coupe that you bought if you couldn’t afford the Mark III. It cannot be coincidence that T-Bird sales dropped off substantially in 1968.
Maybe it was the competition. For years, Thunderbird had the market for personal luxury coupes virtually to itself. Studebaker threw its final two darts at the T-Bird but missed with both. Then came the Buick Riviera. And the Pontiac Grand Prix. Followed by the Oldsmobile Toronado. And the Eldorado. None of these was like the Thunderbird, exactly. But each, in its own way, turned more towards luxury than sport (as was the GM way in that era). But Suddenly, the Thunderbird couldn’t just be the Thunderbird any more. Were Ford’s planners and designers reacting by suddenly tacking towards the GM vision of personal luxury? Whatever happened, the magic seemed gone, or at least greatly diminished, when this car hit the showrooms.
Maybe it was just the car. The 1960s was an unusually good decade for automotive styling. This Thunderbird was not part of it. The more I look at this car, I have to conclude that it was perhaps the least attractive Ford since the 58 Fairlane. But the 58’s problems can be blamed on a botched facelift. This car suffered from its ungainly looks in its original conception. Ford styling had gone from strength to strength as the 60s began to look to the 70s. The 64-66 Thunderbird was a styling triumph. Even the 70-71 had a sleek, flowy kind of thing going on that was attractive in its way. It was like Ford performing Bill Mitchell’s greatest hits. But not the 67. The styling is just off. Like a great idea at 1:30 on a Sunday morning that doesn’t look quite so great in daylight. Somewhere around this time, Stan Kenton’s progressive jazz orchestra did a collaboration album with Tex Ritter, the country star. This Thunderbird’s style is kind of like that. If I were forced to categorize this car’s styling, it would have to be filed under “miscellaneous.”
There is just something wrong with the proportions of this car. Particularly from the side, it shows us those proportions that became Ford hallmarks of the mid 70s – lots of front and rear overhang which made the car look as if the wheelbase was about 12 inches too short. So maybe, this car was the opening salvo of the Great Brougham Wars of the 70s. Whatever the styling problem was, you know that something has gone horribly wrong with your personal luxury coupe when the 4 door mutation is actually better looking.
We have to address the 4 door thing. When I found this car, I was a little disappointed that it was not the 4 door. After all, the Thunderbird sedan is really the only memorable part of this forgettable generation of Birds. But again, what was it? Incredibly, dealers were given materials to convince sales prospects how superior the 67 4 door Bird’s styling was to competitors like the Buick Electra and the Olds 98 Luxury Sedan. No, Really. Did you know that the 68 Thunderbird 4 door even came with a bench seat? What’s up with that?
I have labored over this piece through several sittings, unhappy with the resulting series of scattered and disjointed thoughts that don’t seem to come together into anything resembling coherence. But maybe this result is what naturally comes from thinking or writing about the 67-68 Thunderbird. Because after days of thinking about it, I still don’t know exactly what it was or why it was here. I refuse to believe that I am alone.
“f you had told someone in 1950 that someday it would be socially acceptable to be driving a Ford to the country club or in the more exclusive suburbs, you would have been laughed at. The Thunderbird was the car that began Ford’s move up the social ladder. ”
Yes, and it’s a relatively early indicator of the model name becoming more important than the “brand”. Or maybe the model name becoming the brand. It was acceptable to drive a T-Bird to the country club, but not so a Fairlane.
I see this as the car Cannon drove at a time when his PI business was not quite as successful.
Music has been mentioned, but this car is not Rubber Soul, nor is it the White Album. It’s not psychedelic, and definitely not Jefferson Airplane. Most of the people buying and driving this as a new car were listening to Bert Kaempfert. Maybe Herb Alpert. (I like Bert, now that I’m older and have learned there’s more to music than the top 40, but I still don’t like this generation of T-Bird)
They weren`t listening to Motown-IMHO great music either.Bert Kaemfert, 101 Strings, Mantovani, Andy Williams, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin,Brazil `66, and Herb Albert-for sure.
,
The write up is dead-on. The ’67 Bird is recognizable as a T-Bird, and has some good elements, but the package is quite wrong.
Ford repeated T-Bird history in 1980. Recognizable, some good elements, but the package was again quite wrong.
Dave, comparing the 1967-71 Thunderbirds to the 1980-82 gets you a “Seriously Dude” award? That’s pretty laughable! Wow…why not go and compare it to a Yugo dude! I think the 61-63 Birds were cool but the ’64-66 were def old men’s cars with the skirts and the weird fussy styling- and what was with that front end on those? A 1963-65 Riviera and 1963-66 Grand Prix blew the styling away on Those T-Birds. Ford finally got it back together in ’67 Guy! Wow….Seriously Dude!
Seriously, John, knock off the stupid “Serious Dude” comments, or I will have to seriously delete all of your comments. We get that your hopelessly in love with your ’67 T Bird, which does NOT look like a ’63 Riviera, but to each their own. So please respect other folks’ opinions and comments. Your commenting etiquette is not up to CC standards.
Never got why all through the 60s, the T-birds never had a floor shift. No matter how good or bad the model, always that too-wide SHIFTLESS console. It was screaming for a shift lever.
the T-birds never had a floor shift
Yup. My 67 Bird had a column shift, but my Dad’s 64 Galaxie XL had a floor shift, so it’s not like Ford couldn’t figure out how to put a floorshift in a car.
I’m not a fan of these cards, yet I have a soft spot for them, especially the 4-doors.
Probably because they were so daffy, with a wedge of C-pillar – traced by the fake Landau bar! – cut out to facilitate entry.
I think that’s one of the problems with this car – they essentially used the 4-door roof for both models, leading to barn-door-like C-pillars on the coupes.
The model to have though is the limited edition ’67 Thunderbird Apollo, a blue 2-door Landau with sunroof, real wood trimmed interior and fold-down wood writing tables, among other amenities. 5 were built for display in the (old) Abercrombie & Fitch sporting goods stores; apparently, 4 survive.
Put me down as one who loves these cars. IMHO the only American car other then the Corvette that looks like it was designed for hidden headlights. All others from that era were “oh look, we took the standard model and covered the lights”. It’s a very sleek design compared to it’s fussy predecessors.
The regular hardtop model is tolerable. But the four door and the brougham look clunky piece-together units. The trimming and moldings look like someone got the parts from a second hand store. A hease scroll on the side, really?? Nothing fits, doesn’t flow at all.
BTW, the example and pic that Mr. Cavanaugh posted to start this whole diatribe on the Glamour Birds is really not a nice representation. Yeah, let’s go and find the most oxidized, bad color combo (red and black?) wheel cover missing ’68 we can find and post that so people can rip on this car. That’s why I thought the offset would be to post some pics of my ’67 HARDTOP that is in VERY NICE condition with the sporty mag style factory wheel covers to show these cars DO look very sporty and nice. You also get a “Seriously Dude” award LOL!
There’s plenty of sites to drool over trailer queens; part of the fun of CC is to find a beater and talk it up or down depending on your point of view. Mr. Cavanaugh’s POV is well-credentialled and well-substantiated even if he does at times hand out a modicum of tough love. You’ve got a nice example yourself but the model is not everyone’s cup of tea. Seriously mate.
John, Use the words “Seriously Dude” once more, and you’re seriously evicted. Get a grip; we’re grown ups here and can show any car we feel like, and express our opinions on them.
I really liked the 2 door T-Bird’s of this era but never cared for the 4 door’s, I never understood why the T-Bird wanted to make a 4 door version of the T-Bird although I would gladly own those over the 1972-76 giant and 1980-82 boxy T-Bird’s any day.
I was only becoming “car aware” in the late ’60’s maybe 7 or 8 years old. The neighborhood had interesting cars all over the place, even French ones. But I absolutely adored the respective Thunderbirds the two neighbors down the street had. One, a red ’62 convertible and the other a ’65. The convertible would come out in the spring and word would go out among us kids that Mr. M was going to put the top down. What a show!
On a perpendicular street there was one of these 67 or maybe 68’s in a 4 door. I liked it and thought it was cool. Until I realized it was a Thunderbird. Then I hated it. It must have represented the demise of all that was good, in my 8 year old mind.
If I ignore the nameplate and take the car as a stand alone Ford product, I really like it.
As a Thunderbird, I still don’t. I guess I got traumatized by the strangest things. 😉
As a owner of a 1968 2 door power window ac 429 I’m surprised how many people dislike this car. I have owned mine for 8 years now and only drive it around the block a few times a year but I like this car so much that I’m going to be putting my 1967 Bonneville convertible up for sale to put the money into my bird. Wen I’m done it will not be stock I’m going to loose the vinyl top adding a shaker hood and custom interior. The Bird is green with black top and bucket seats for now. I’m still not sure of the exterior color yet but this will be a slow process so I have time to figure that out.
I`m a T Bird fan, I like them all up to `66. The `67s,68s, 69, are the worst of the bunch, especially with that mouth organ grille. Also, its kinda ironic.The T Bird, one of the cars that started the bucket seat and console trend had a split bench seat standard in `68. Seems that Ford had no “better idea” for this Bird.A car that lost its way and never got its groove back. Some car guys refer to them as “Turd Birds”.
I was born in ’61 and had the original ’67 Hot Wheels T-Bird in aqua green. As a car-obsessed kid I was infatuated with that grill and hidden headlights, and have been ever since. Now that the kids are out of the house I’m seriously wanting one, maybe ’69 fordor.
67 tbird is an awesome car. one of a kind look.
I had a 1967 4 door ( suicides ) and it was a Landau with an Opera Seat in the rear. my grandfather acquired the car in 1985 in Miami in a business deal. Apparently it
was 1 of 10 made for executives and one being the original owner of Tamarac Executive Airport. The rear opera seat was curved with small fold out trays ( airline like ) on each armrest area, and a center console also similar like the one in the picture posted here. In the knee area of the back seat ( in center ) was an ice bucket built in and a wine bottle holder with 4 champaigne flutes engraved with FMC/E
I’ll round up a couple pictures from my storage unit. Ohhh the seats were a silk like blue with glittery gold appointments …..
has anyone ever seen or heard of this model ?
My grandmother had a triple black landau that she sold when I was only 8 years old – but it left an indelible mark on my memory. At some point she had to park it for good because the frame rusted away – but my brother and I were allowed to play in it because to us, it was “The Batmobile!” Eventually she sold it to some scrappers and regretted selling it to the day she died.
A couple years ago I stumbled onto this one out of the blue and bought it with every intention of bringing it back to life. It has come along way but will never be a $50,000 show car, nor do I want it to be. Just a Friday night cruiser, and something different other than all the Mustangs, Challengers, Camaros, 57 Chevy’s, etc… you always see at car shows.
One thing no one else has pointed out – is that while I agree these were the opening salvo of the 70’s brougham cars, the ’67 also foreshadowed the 71-73 Mustang. Notice the body lines as they come up from the front fenders to the sliding rear window – along with he gaping front mouth. Not exact, but the DNA is there.
For fellow 67-68 Tbird owners looking for sheet metal –
My rear quarters were rusted away and as you know, repro parts and metal are pretty much non-existent. I ended up taking mine to Kustom Metal in Fulton, IL. You may know the owner Ben from the “American Pickers” TV show. Ben did a great job and did all the fabrication by hand.
Hope to get her painted sometime early next year. Work in progress…
Wow, so much negativity towards one of the coolest most beautiful cars of it’s era, IMHO. First time I’ve ever encountered some of these kind of attitudes towards this era Thunderbird so much in one place, other than a GM car show. Like walking into the diner where the old men are all Chevy or Chrysler fans, and you drove up in your Ford. Lol. And somebody comparing it to that garish overstyled Riviera as if it were more tastefully styled than the Bird? To each their own….
Gentleman, you are indeed right that everyone is entitled to their opinion….but if you make so many critical remarks about cars that you may not appreciate, but just as many others do….you may get remarks back. And just as pointed as the ones you made. Expect it. Just saying. Paragraph long rants about everything “wrong” with the Bird, and how they didn’t know what they were doing when they made them, etc… may rub people that like them the wrong way. Threatening to delete dissenting responding comments, as such, says to a newcomer here: “Everyone is entitled to their opinion. As long as it’s the same as ours.” Just saying…. 🙂
There never was, and there never will be a song with the lyrics:
“Fun, fun, fun, till her daddy took the ’67 T-Bird away.”
There never was, and there never will be a song with the lyrics:
“And she’ll have fun, fun, fun, till her daddy takes the 1967 T-Bird away.”
Only in recent years did I understand that the 1968 Thunderbird has a much cheaper-looking dashboard than the ’67. You can see some aspects of the difference above, in the photo of the ’68 dash followed by the ad for the all-new (’67) four-door, which also shows the dash in a small photo.
I wanted to buy a 67 2dr my boss owned. Baby blue, white top, white interior and a 428 under the hood. Loved that car, he had several of the 4dr models but was not interested. Ended up buying a 68 Cougar with the 428.
I agree the T-Bird did not age well. I don’t know why but it reminds me of the Millennium Falcon, hang on Chewy we’re going into hyper-drive!
That gaping maw of a grill, I think the 68 Charger is the only one that pulled it off successfully. Kind of the same look as the 69-70 Shelby’s and the 71-73 Mustangs at least the Mustangs broke up the look by having the headlights visible.
Nothing worse than the sad look of a half-open or closed headlight door. Only thing worse is the dead fish eye look of the 928 Porsche, doesn’t look good open, closed or any other variation.
Wow reading through these comments is like a bad family thanksgiving! I’m intrigued by the concept of of the article so I thought I would share one bit of anecdotal evidence:
My grandparents were country club folks in Los Angeles and my grandmother had two new thunderbirds (1958 and 1964), but by the time this one came around, she had moved on to LTDs (1966, 1968 and 1970) and eventually to a 1975 Granada Ghia. My grandfather drove a series of Lincoln Continental company cars at the same time, so they fit the mold described above of a thunderbird/Lincoln garage.
So my thought is that (as Paul has shown), the LTD really was the new thing! And maybe the stacked headlights on the LTD were more current looking as well. Incidentally, my dad’s cousin bought the 1966 from my grandmother and he used to refer to it as the 7 litre Ford but I’m unsure if it was an LTD with the 428 or an actual 7-Litre model.
The fifth and eighth generation Thunderbirds were parodies of the fourth and seventh generations. This is why they failed.
In both cases, the Thunderbird needed a new design, but there wasn’t any new ideas to put into the new generations. Why have a Thunderbird when Ford already has the LTD and the Mustang? Ford wanted to keep their TBird, but couldn’t decide what it needed to be in that new era. It was a natural procession to see the TBird become the Ford Mark IV in 1972 for the Thunderbird sixth generation.
But for the fifth generation, Thunderbird was a parody of itself from the fourth generation. Ford wanted to spur sales and profits, so they created a cheaper version of the fourth, and added a sedan. The half-hearted design failed.
The eighth generation failed as well.
Great article, and considering that it was originally posted in 2011, which was way before I started coming here, I feel compelled to weigh in here. First, you nailed the reasons why it had been so polarizing.
What I will add is that the Mustang had most likely stolen a good portion of the T-Bird’s thunder…..at least the sporty theme of it, anyways. The Mustang was sometimes referred to as “the poor man’s T-Bird”, so by the time that it started mutating a bit more into a luxury territory in 1967 than before–coupled with the Cougar being the more luxurious version of the Mustang–those factors started stealing sales away from the T-Bird. By that time, the Falcon’s sporting intentions had dwindled (Futura, etc) and even it had a “T-Bird on a budget” thing with the round jet fighter taillights and things like that.
Factor in the bloat of the LTD and like you mention, the Mark III’s excellence at that time, as well as the scene being crowded with competition (Riviera, Eldorado, Toronado, etc), and it was a recipe for failure at some point. The Cougar sort of fared the same fate–stripped of the sporty intentions, it was just another brougham in amongst a long list of them.
The only thing that most likely could have saved it, was to become a 2 seater again, and in many respects, I feel that Ford should have done that. It didn’t need to be as macho as Corvette; just something that brought an international flair and excitement to it. They probably needed to be more European at a time where there needed to be more engineering competition with the engineers overseas. But world class intentions would have helped. Overhead cam, independent suspension, attention/ focus towards lighter materials and advances into fuel injection would have helped.
Either that, and/ or move Thunderbird to its own brand. Two more doors weren’t needed, nor were more plush interiors. The best way to do that is to add by subtraction: bring back the halo, aspirational sporty two seater by taking away the two seats and the bloat.
They would have sold less of them, but would have been able to charge more, and they needed more exclusivity. It would have been a hard sell to the bean counters, but it would have likely been the best way to find out if Thunderbird could actually survive in the long run. That being said, I’m impressed at Thunderbird’s longevity despite the mediocrity and cost cutting, and the Aero birds of the 80’s styling still hold up to this day. I owned a ’91 Super Coupe, and it was a great car……but the compromises were definitely still there.
Hmm…my take on the car pretty much goes back to my first recollection of that car.( I was born in 1965 and had one of those hot wheels) The front and the rear of the car are original, and good. The front looks designed for hideaways, not tacked on, and the “inset” is at least interesting. The rear IS futuristic. Both could be featured in a Syd Mead painting. But the side view, with white wall and ornate wheel covers lets one done, and the vinyl roof and LANDAU bar…why, WHY? That metallic gray one without the landau, without the vinyl, and some good wheels…not a bad looking ride…..
There’s a good point about the ‘Bird becoming a step down on the ladder from a Mark, on a continuum of Ford PLCs that by 1975 started with the Mustang II Ghia notchback.
The hardtop coupe, as the most common, was a car I mostly saw as a child born in ’74 as a rusty, disreputable beater in full size with the Hot Wheels entering my collection as a ten-cent yard sale item with pre-chipped paint and pre-bent axles.
I always felt the four-door should’ve been brought back for ’77 when it would’ve been plug-and-play, and particularly kept in the line after 1983 by which time sport sedans were the new “It” Cars and PLCs were starting their long slide to oblivion.
In its time, this 1968 T-bird must have seemed like it had two left feet. Awkward, with a vacuum attachment looking frontage. Who bought these? Brewery salesmen who drove them around town to buy rounds at local bars? Aging marketing types who wanted to show off their career successes at the country club? In comparison to the 1966, my benchmark for the brand, this car had become too big, and lost its way. The ’66 was svelte, stylish, rightsized, and personable. Not to mention handsome. That forward sweeping grille, those beautiful three phase taillights.
Now put a 1974 Bird in line with the 68 and the 66, and see how far the marque had fallen. Had a few too many twinkies over the years, and gained a few pounds of heft I see.
This is still better than a lot of other cars.
It is only a fail as a Thunderbird, as compared to other Thunderbirds before and since. Yet – it is still a Thunderbird!
It sits low, has a very over the top landau roof treatment, hidden headlights, electric everything except the engine, and the high cost.
Who are you? You are a former soon-to-be organ donor, as your passing seemed imminent. You were near death and there was a long waiting list for your particularly strong type 429 heart. You are a Rip Van Winkle of sorts.
Your heart was likely to live on as an all-out performance heart, or possibly even as a workaday truck’s heart.
Your heart was unlikely to have gone to a recipient similar to yourself, because failure of the type 429 heart when in the posh easy living of passenger car life was almost unheard of.
As to why you are here, it is mainly because time has moved on and demand for your particular type 429 heart has slowed. Also, you have managed to preserve your health remarkably well. Your same ailments, unchanged now at some 40+ years on, don’t seem so serious. As one of the dwindling number of survivors of your bygone era, there is now a slow but sure interest building in keeping the last of your kind around as long as possible.
It is too easy to criticize the 67-69 vintage, just as a Monday morning quarterback criticizes his team’s Sunday effort. For me, I appreciate the front, rear, and interior styling as either “evolutionary Thunderbird” or as adapting to emerging technology and automotive fashion. This vintage, however, fails me in the No Man’s Land greenhouse, wherein the A-pillar is too stiff and the C-pillar is to generic. The exposed windshield wipers date it badly. Oops, it must be Monday.
Regarding the exposed wipers: I don’t think any Ford product had hidden wipers up through 1969; only their priciest 1970 models had them: the Mark III, facelifted (beak) Thunderbird, and new-design Lincoln Continental.
As for the greenhouse: I remember seeing a futuristic Ford coupe at the NY World’s Fair a few years earlier that featured much the same design, with the vertical, short rear quarter windows and no vent windows. (And no landau bars on the C-pillar.) It was quite a leap from what was on the streets at that time. I can’t think of another car that went directly from flat glass with vent windows (in ’66) to curved glass without. (Of course back then I didn’t appreciate vent windows’ advantages, nor think about how omitting them lowered manufacturer cost.)
I agree about the stubby A-pillars. They don’t seem so bad when seen on the Mark III, maybe because the eye is distracted by the grill.
The one (only thing) thing that bugs me about this generation is the proportion of wheelbase to overhang. Thunderbirds had always been low, with a relatively long dash to front axle dimension, and relatively short front overhang. This one’s extra front overhang skewed the proportions, and changed the styling from dynamic to static – this despite the opened rear wheelwell. Shove the front wheels forward three of four inches, and I think you’d get those classic Thunderbird proportions back.
Here’s my ’67 four-door model. Saw one when new; never forgotten.
I have not been a fan of this model T Bird since it first appeared. However over the last few years I’ve started to warm up to it. All “Matt Helm/ Dean Martin references aside, even if the styling ain’t that good, at least the styling is at least unique. A week ago I saw a landau version of this car, in a very sad state being offered for sale on my local Craig’s List. For some reason at the angle it was photographed, I found it attractive. Man, I must be getting old!
I bought this ’68 in ’73 with 70K on the odometer, for $500. I drove it for about 15 years and parked it, hoping one of my boys would be interested in helping me restore it. Neither were, so I sold it in the late 90’s.
The large birds were blasphemy, and Ford should have given it another name.
I enjoyed the car. Hopefully somebody is still enjoying it.
(I have a new drive shaft if anyone is in the market)
Never been a Thunderbird guy, but love these, one of my favourite American cars period..
Make mine a 2 door without a vinyl roof.
Don’t really understand the general dislike of these, maybe that says more about me than I want to know..
It would seem that most people on this site do not like the styling of the 1967 Thunderbird. I beg to differ. While I love each generation that came before it (I own a 1960 and 1966, and want a 1963 and 1957), I also love the 1967 – maybe almost more than the others. The drive quality is light years ahead of the previous generation. It was also the last to have the full length console, opposing windshield wipers, and aluminum trimmed interior as well as the last year to have die cast metal instrument panel clusters. It did, however loss it’s fender skirts – a styling theme that was fading away after the introduction of the Toronado. They also lost their bright A pillar trim (although I fabricated those for my car). And also, it was the first year that they started to be cheapened in the interior with the use of plastics, but this also was the wave of the future. However, it still had the even larger wall to wall tail sequential tail lights, die cast grill with new hidden headlights, as well as a the tilt-away steering wheel (this time automated). But body on frame gave the car a much quieter interior. Mine is a Q Code with the 428, and it is fast and smooth like you would not believe.
Most of the time, when you do see one, they are in rather poor condition. Since they were never collected and were great road cars and driven into the ground – not many very nice one’s exist. But when you do see a very nice example, they will get your attention.
I forgot to mention that the 1967 was the last year to have console mounted power window switches – the next year and onward, they were mounted on the door like other cars. And the 1967 was the last year that the tilt-away steering wheel was standard equipment – the next year it was an option.
And I might add that while it is very well known that the 1967 Tbirds are much bigger and much heavier than the previous generation – that is false knowledge!!!
In reality, the 2 dr 1967 is a mere 1.5″ longer, BUT it is .1″ narrower and 300 lbs lighter!!!
1966 weight is 4,560 lbs. 1967 weight is 4,256 lbs.
1966 length is 205.4″. 1967 length is 206.9″
1966 lbs/HP is 13.2. 1967 lbs/HP is 12.3 (Q code)
Wow, that’s a really nice example in the picture that you’ve posted, Bill. Is that yours? The wire wheels are an awesome touch, and really make the car stand out. I’d rock that thing, for sure.
Which leads me to my next point–the stock hubcap selection for these was terrible. Many of the survivors still have them. The ones in the picture in the original article are probably the worst……they make a big car that needs some sleek lines look even bigger than it needs to be.
Yes Ryan S, it is mine. I normally do not like after market wire wheels on a vintage car, even Thunderbird wire wheels for 1955 through 1966 Thunderbirds. However, I saw one like mine with the wire wheels, and I changed my mine quickly for my 1967. I also had the white walls shaved to a little wider white wall, although not a true wide white wall (that would be all wrong), since the white wall does not go all the way to the wheel. I also used a special SEM vinyl paint to change the color of my perfect condition vinyl top from black to white, after seeing the one with wire wheels that had a white (parchment) top. It seems to really set off the black interior from the white car and just gave the car a more glamours look.
I have added bright polished formed aluminum A pillar trim, after I made the video. And I installed electric actuators for the headlight doors. And I installed super bright LEDs for the tail lights – they are very bright and really cool looking. NOTE: This could be the only car, or one of only a few, that had tail light bulbs that were hidden! You only see the indirect (reflected) light from the bulbs. As I understand it, Ford might have changed this in 1969-1971 due to the dim tail lights in the sun.
For you entertainment pleasure…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB8J6bQU87w&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAserbdzbGg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DetrRVSfyfk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NaPnahF0N8
It has been 9 years since I wrote this, so I have had plenty of time to think. I will grant you this: I agree that the 67 is the one to have of that 3 year run for just the reasons you say. And yours definitely looks a lot nicer than the original forlorn subject I shot all those years ago. A really nice car that you are right to be proud of.
I also don’t doubt for a moment that it is a pleasant car to drive. I could see going with the 4 door version because I think the proportions come off better, and because it is uniquely cool with the suicide doors.
Ford made styling magic from 1958 through 1966, making a 4500 pound car on a 113 inch wheelbase look “right”. The 67-69 just missed, and in looking at your car I can’t point to any one thing, only lots of small things – front overhang and the overly square wheel opening shape being two of them. It’s far from an ugly car, but it just doesn’t come together the way everything else Ford was building in 1967 did.
Maybe the biggest problem is that by 1968 Ford was offering too many choices – you could have a luxury/sporty coupe, with wheelbases of 108 (Mustang), 111 (Cougar) 115 (Thunderbird) and 117 (Mark III). Once the Mark III hit, for the first time the new owner of a Thunderbird could have been thought of as having “settled” rather than getting “the good one”. Which was like the arrival of the hangman for an image car like the Bird. Perfect styling might have created a good niche, but this one did not hit that small target.
Looks like there are many points of view on this generation T’Bird. For me, the sedan i’s a great looking car, perhaps the front isn’t solved totally to my taste. But the suicide rear doors, with that C-pillar enclosing the rearmost of the door and surelly obscuring much of the view is a very nice design.